Karnataka High Court
Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1167
Bench: S.Sujatha, Jyoti Mulimani
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF MAY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.119515 OF 2020 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.119516, 119517, 119518,
119519, 119520, 119521, 119522, 119523
AND 101971 OF 2020 (S-KAT)
IN WP NO. 119515 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.RANJANA SURESH PATIL
D/O SURESH PATIL,
AGED: 41 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM-
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
CIVIL AND JMFC COURT, BAILHONGAL,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
R/AT: C/O B.S. BANGALE ADVOCATE,
SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE,
BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 796/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 119516 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI.VINAYAK S. PATIL S/O S.V. PATIL
AGED: 41 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
IV JMFC COURT, NEW COURT COMPLEX,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/AT: NO.43, 2 N D MAIN CROSS,
3
RAMKRISHNANAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 950/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
4
IN WP NO. 119517 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI SANGANGOUDA NAYAK
AGED: 43 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
JMFC COURT, BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT
DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001
R/AT C/O SECTOR NO.46, PLOT NO.222,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
5
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 675/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 119518 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.SAROJINI VEERAPPA BATAKURKI
D/O VEERAPPA BATAKURKI
AGED: 47 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BILIGI
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT,
R/AT MAIN BAZER LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
6
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 677/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 119519 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.GEETA S. ASUTI
D/O SRI SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED: 35 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM-
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
BEHIND KALABHAVAN,
DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001
R/AT HOUSE NO.55/4B, PLOT NO.8,
VANASHRI BUILDING, 1 S T MAIN, 3 R D CROSS,
RAJATGIRI, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580004.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
7
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 678/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
8
IN WP NO. 119520 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.SHILPA JOSHI, D/O ASHOK
AGED: 37 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDALGI,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
R/AT C/O R.R.LAKEPPANAVAR
LAXMINAGAR, MUDALGI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
9
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 819/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 119521 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI RAVINDRASA S/O UMAKANTASA
AGED: 42 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
IIND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
R/AT NO. 30, 32, B-201,
2 N D FLOOR, HIRA AVENUE APARTMENT,
MAYUR GARDEN, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
10
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 795/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 119522 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI DHANAPAL DEVAPPA HARUGERI,
S/O DEVAPPA, AGED: 43 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM
-ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
IIND JMFC COURT NEAR LOKAYUKTA SP OFFICE
BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
R/AT GANGA NILAYA, SECTOR NO. 11,
NEAR MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
11
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 683/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
12
IN WP NO. 119523 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI BASALINGAPPA BORGAL
AGED: 41 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM
-ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
COURT COMPLEX, ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT
R/AT PWD QUARTERS, IB ROAD,
ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS,
6 T H FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2;
SRI SANTHOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4)
13
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRI T IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED 20/11/2019 IN
APPLICATION NUMBER 674/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.,
***
IN WP NO. 101971 OF 2020
BETWEEN
MR. VIJAYCHANDRA PRABHU B.,
S/O VENKATESHULU B.,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
W/AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT C/O RAJASHEKAR KARIMUDDI HOUSE,
1 S T FLOOR, OPPOSITE KONDAEMI SCHOOL
VIJAYANAGAR, NEAR RAMMANDIR,
GANGAVATHI - 58322.
... PETI TIONER
(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY I TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
14
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUTKA
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. ADDI TIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 &
R3)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10075/2019 AS PER
ANNEXURE-J DATED 21.11.2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO. 10075/2019 AS
PRAYED FOR BY THE PETI TIONER BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL AND ETC.
***
THESE WRI T PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 04.03.2020 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
15
COMMON ORDER
Since similar and akin issues are involved, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru/Belagavi (for short, 'the KSAT'), in applications filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'Act 1985') challenging the recommendation of the Hon'ble Upalokayukta vide reports under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act 1984') and the order passed by the State of Karnataka entrusting the matter for enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'Rules 1957') as well as the 16 Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. BACKGROUND FACTS:
3. The petitioners contend that they had appeared for the written examination conducted by the Government of Karnataka through Recruitment Committee, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation, to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader on 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013; petitioners having successfully cleared the written examination and viva voce, got appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor- cum-Assistant Government Pleader vide appointment orders issued by the competent authority. Probation period of the petitioners were declared by the Department of Home, Government of Karnataka on 25.06.2016. A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed before the Trial Court by one Sri H.T.Ravi, an 17 unsuccessful candidate, alleging that accused No.1- Sri Chandrashekar Hiremath, the then Director of Prosecution and accused No.2 - Sri Narayanswamy, staff at the Office of Director of Prosecution, were involved in corruption with respect to recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders. Further the said H.T.Ravi also listed register numbers of 23 candidates alleging corruption with the above said accused Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that the Trial Court referred the private complaint to investigation by Lokayukta Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Lokayukta Police registered the FIR and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the said Lokayukta police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court took cognizance of offences and registered the case in Special C.C.No.305/2017. The Investigation Officer further filed supplementary charge sheet in the above case 18 against sixty-one persons including the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the above said offences and issued summons to all the sixty-one persons including the petitioners herein.
4. When things stood thus, the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta has issued observation note individually dated 28.06.2019 stating that in view of the charge sheet filed by the police authorities against the petitioners and others, the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta by exercising its powers under Section 7 (2) of the Act, 1984, has registered suo- moto cases against the petitioners and called upon to show-cause as to why departmental enquiry should not be initiated against the petitioners along with the copies of charge sheet filed in Special Case No.305/2017, answer sheet referred to therein and 19 the statement of the evaluator. The petitioners furnished a detailed reply to the said observation note/s refuting the allegations made against them as baseless, further raising objections as to jurisdiction of the Karnataka Lokayukta and non-supply of documents referred to in the charge sheet.
5. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta issued report under Section 12(3) of the Act 1984 to the State of Karnataka in order to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners. The State of Karnataka has passed an order under Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957 entrusting the matter to the Hon'ble Upa Lokayukta-1 for conducting an enquiry against the petitioners. Subsequent to which, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Hon'ble Upa Lokayukta who has framed Article of Charges against the petitioners. Challenging the action of the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta in issuing the report 20 under Section 12(3) of the Act and the State of Karnataka entrusting the proceedings to the Hon'ble Upa Lokayukta-1 for conducting an enquiry under Rule 14-A as well as the Article of Charges framed by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, the petitioners preferred applications before the KSAT, which came to be rejected. Hence, these writ petitions.
Submissions of the petitioners:-
6. The gist of the arguments are that KSAT is not justified in dismissing the applications overlooking the established principles of law. Section 7(2) of the Act should not have been invoked since no grievance or allegation has been made against the public servant before the Upalokayukta and as such the initiation of enquiry by the Upalokayukta is without jurisdiction. It was argued that the complainant, Sri H.T.Ravi has already invoked the jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions 21 Judge under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by filing private complaint. Hence, the Upalokayukta has no power to investigate into the matter in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act 1984. Hence, further consequential orders passed by the concerned authorities suffer with infirmities and the same are liable to be quashed.
7. It was submitted that the petitioners had not occupied the public office at the time of the alleged misconduct, to be termed as public servants within the meaning of 'public servant' enumerated under the Act 1984. That the Upalokayukta having issued notice alleging dereliction of duty has referred the matter to the competent authority to initiate further action on the ground of misconduct as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'Rules 1977'). No allegation relating to the misconduct under the Rules, 1977 was imputed in the show-cause notices issued by the Upalokayukta 22 as such, the petitioners had no opportunity to refute the same. It was argued that there is no iota of truth in any of the allegations made by the Investigating Officer even as per the charge sheet filed. That the entire case of the prosecution is solely based on the FSL report which does not support the case of the Investigation Officer. Further no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before submitting report to the Government to have their say in the matter. Inviting the attention of the Court to Section 8(1)(a) Clause(d) of second schedule to the Act 1984, it was contended that there is an absolute bar to conduct any investigation under the Act by the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayuka in the case inasmuch as the action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants. The action of the Hon'ble Lokayukta in registering a case suo moto runs contrary to the 23 provisions of the Act 1984. Framing of articles of charge against the petitioners based on the illegal report ought to have been considered by the KSAT in a right perspective. Most of the petitioners without the alleged additional marks would still be entitled for selection on merits as there are many other candidates who have been selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government pleader with much lesser marks. Thus, it was argued that the impugned report of the Hon'ble Lokayukta and the consequential Government Order as well as the Article of Charges are issued without jurisdiction much against the material facts and are liable to be quashed. These vital aspects not being appreciated by the KSAT while dismissing the applications, the interference of this Court is warranted. Submissions made on behalf of the Karnataka Lokayukta:
24
8. Learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath submitted that pursuant to the investigation conducted by the Office of the Lokayukta against the petitioners, who had appeared for the examinations of recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader, departmental enquiry proceedings have been initiated. The challenge made to the initiation of departmental enquiry is baseless. The petitioners sans participating in the departmental enquiry proceedings have rushed to the Tribunal in haste. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold since it is premature to consider the defence of the petitioners at this stage.
9. It was argued that the criminal cases filed against the petitioners are for the alleged violation of law in commission of the alleged offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act whereas the departmental proceedings are initiated against the 25 petitioners for alleged misconduct under Rule 20 of the Rules. Malpractice and unfairness adopted by the petitioners in the written examination amounts to misconduct under Rule 20 of the Rules. It was contended that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta should not conduct any investigation under the Act in case of a complaint involving grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. But in the present set of facts, it is not shown by the petitioners that such action has already been taken against the petitioners in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of the petitioners. Section 8 of the Act is applicable to a compliant involving grievance and not allegations. Investigation initiated against the petitioners is with respect to allegation and not grievance. Therefore, protection sought 26 under clause(d) of the Second Schedule read with Section 8 of the Act is misconceived. Challenge to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and consequential orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority is permissible only (i) where disciplinary proceedings are initiated by an incompetent authority; (ii) such proceedings are in violation of any statutory rule of law; (iii) where there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice; (iv) on account of proven bias and malafides. No such grounds exist warranting interference with the order impugned.
Submissions made on behalf of the State Government:-
10. Learned Government Advocate supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted that the malpractices/corrupt practices carried on by the petitioners in recruitment process of APP-cum-AGP 27 would certainly amenable to the provisions of the Act, more particularly, under Rule 20 of the Rules. Alleged action of corrupt practices to secure the post of APP-cum-AGP touches the consciousness of the Society in general and the persons involved in particular. Such moral turpitude of grave misconduct of a person would disentitle him to hold a civil post. Notwithstanding any criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated under the KCS (CCA) Rules. Lokayukta has competency to initiate suo moto action under Section 7(2) of the Act. Entrustment of the case or issuance of Article of charges are not amenable to challenge either before the KSAT or this court under writ jurisdiction.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to host of judgments and the same are discussed infra along 28 with other relevant judgments applicable to the present set of facts.
12. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration of this Court are:
i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Karnataka Upalokayukta had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 1984?
ii) In the facts and circumstances of the
case, whether Rule 20 of the Rules,
1977 could be invoked against the
petitioners?
iii) Whether clause (d) to Second Schedule
read with Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act, 1984 is attracted in the present set of facts?
iv) Whether the principles of natural
justice are violated by the
29
Upalokayukta and the State
Government in initiating proceedings/ action against the petitioners?
v) Whether the Article of Charges issued
by the Additional Registrar of
Enquires-12 suffers from infirmities?
JURISDICTION
13. It is imperative that question No.(1) in its broader sphere encompasses question Nos.(2) and (3). Firstly, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of Sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Act, 1984 and Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 which reads thus:
14. Section 2 (12) of the Act reads as under:
"(12) "Public servan t" me ans a person who is or was at any time,-
(a) the Chief Min ister;
(b) a Min is ter;
(c) a Me mber of the State Legislature;
(d) a Govern ment servant;
(e) the Ch air man and Vice-Chair man (by wh atever name called) or a me mb er of a local au thority in the S tate of Karnatak a or a statu tory body or corporation 30 established by or under any la w of the State Legislature, includ ing a co-operative socie ty, or a Govern ment Co mp any with in the me an ing of section 617 of the Co mp anies Act, 1956 and such other corporations or boards as the State Govern ment may, hav ing reg ard to its f inancial in terest in such corporations or boards, by no tif ication, f rom time to time, spec if y;
(f ) me mber of a Committee or Board, statu tory or non-statu tory, constituted by the Govern men t; and
(g) a person in the service of pay of ,-
(i) a loc al au thority in the State of
Karn atak a;
(ii) a statu tory body or a corporation
(not be ing a local author ity) established by or under a State or Centr al Act, o wned or controlled by the State Govern me nt and any other board or Corpor ation as the State Govern ment may, hav ing regard to its f inancial in teres t there in by notif ication, f ro m time to time, spec if y;
(iii) a co mp any reg istered under the Co mp anies Act, 1956, in wh ich not less th an f if ty one percent of the paid up share c apital is 31 held by the State Govern men t, or any co mp any wh ich is a subsid iary of such co mp any;
(iv) a soc iety regis tered or dee med to have been regis tered under the Karn atak a Socie ties Regis tration Act, 1960, wh ich is subject to the control of the State Govern ment and wh ich is notif ied in th is behalf in the Off icial G aze tte;
(v) a co-operative Socie ty;
(vi) a un iversity;
Expl anation- In this clause, "co-operative
socie ty" me ans a co-oper ative socie ty regis tered or dee med to h ave been regis tered under the Karn atak a Co-operative Socie ties Act, 1959, and "university" me ans a univers ity established or dee med to be es tablished by or under any law of the State Leg isl ature."
7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.-
(2) Subject to the provis ions of the Act, an Upalokayuk ta may investig ate any ac tion wh ich is taken by or with the general or spec if ic approval of , any publ ic serv ant not being the Chief Min ister, Minister, Me mber of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servan t ref ereed to in sub- section (1), in any case where a complain t 32 involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such ac tion can be or could have been, in the opin ion of the Upalok ayukta, recorded in wr iting. the subject of a grievance or an allegation.
(2-A) Notwiths tan ding anyth ing contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lokayuk ta or an Upalok ayukta may investigate any ac tion taken by or with the general or spec if ic approv al of a publ ic servant, if it is ref erred to him by the State Govern ment.
8. Matters not subject to investigation:
(1) Excep t as herein af ter prov ided, the Lokayuk tha or an Up a-lokayuk tha sh all not conduct any investig ation under th is Act in the case of a co mpl ain t involving a grievance in respect of any action,-
(a) if such action relates to any matter spec if ied in the Second Schedule; or .....
15. Clause (d) of Second Schedule reads thus: 33
"(d) Action taken in respect of
appo intmen ts, re mov als, p ay, discipline,
superannuation or other matters relating to cond itions of service of public servants but not including ac tion relating to cl aims f or pension, gratu ity, prov ident f und or to any claims wh ich ar ise on retire men t, re mov al or ter min ation of service.
16. Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 runs as under:
"20.Misconduct.- A cand id ate f ound guil ty of impersonation or of submitting f abricated documen ts or documen ts which have been tampered with or of making s tate me nts which are incorrect or f alse or of suppressing mater ial inf ormation or of us ing or atte mp ting to use unf air me ans in an examination conducted f or purposes of recruitment or o ther wise resor ting to any o ther irregular or improper me ans in conne ction with his recruitment may in add ition to rend er ing himse lf liable to a cr iminal prosecution and to d iscipl inary action, be debarre d e ither per manently or f or a specif ied per iod-
(a) by the Co mmiss ion or o ther recruiting or examining author ity f rom ad miss ion to any 34 examination or appear ing f or any interv ie w f or selection of cand id ates, and
(b) by the Governme nt f rom e mployme n t under it. "
17. It is significant to note that as per Section 9 of the Act, any person may make a compliant under the Act to the Lokayukta or Upaloyukta as prescribed under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985. Primarily, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are of three fold. Firstly, that the Upalokayukta has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation against the petitioners since they could not be construed as 'public servants' in terms of Section (2) (12) of the Act on the date of the alleged misconduct. Secondly, no investigation could be made by the Upalokayukta relating to the matters coming under Section 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Act read with clause (d) of second schedule. Thirdly, in view of the de f acto complaint filed under Section 166(3) 35 by the complainant before the jurisdictional court and the matter being ceased of in the said proceedings, invoking the provisions of the Act by the Upalokayukta is barred under Section 8(b) of the Act. In addition to this, arguments were advanced on the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice and on the legality of the Article of Charges framed by the Registrar of Enquries-12.
18. The proceedings have been initiated by the Upalokayuta under Section 7 (2) read with Section 9 suo moto not on the de f acto complaint said to have been lodged by the unsuccessful candidate before the jurisdictional Magistrate involving the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
19. Section 9 of the Act reads thus;
9. Provis ions relating to co mpl aints and investig ations.- (1) Subject to the provis ions of th is Ac t, any person may make a co mpl ain t 36 under th is Ac t to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayuk ta.
(2) Every co mpl ain t shall be made in the f orm of a state ment suppor ted by an aff idav it and in such f orm and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Where the Lokayuk ta or an Upalokayuk ta proposes, af ter mak ing such
prel imin ary inquiry as he dee med f it, to conduc t any investig ation under th is Ac t, he,-
(a) sh all f or ward a copy of the complain t to the publ ic serv ant and the co mpe ten t au thority concerned;
(b) shall aff ord to such public servant an opportunity to off er his co mments on such co mplain t;
(c) may make such order as to the saf e custody of docu ments relev ant to the investig ation, as he dee ms f it.
(4) Save as af oresaid, the procedure f or conducting any such inves tig atio n sh all be such, and may be held e ither in publ ic or in camer a, as the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, 37 as the case may be, cons iders appropriate in the circu ms tances of the case.
(5) T he Lokayukta or the Up alokayuk ta may, in h is discretion, ref use to inves tig ate or cease to investig ate any co mplain t involving a grievance or an allegation, if , in his opin ion,-
(a) the co mplain t is f rivolous or vexatious or is not made in good f aith;
(b) there are no suff icient grounds f or investig ating or, as the c ase may be, f or continu ing the investig ation; or
(c) other re medies are av ail able to the co mplain an t and in the circu ms tances of the case it would be more proper f or the co mplain an t to av ail of such re medies.
(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Up alokayukta decides not to entertain a co mplain t or to discon tinue any investig ation in respect of a complain t he sh all record his reasons theref or and co mmun icate the same to the co mpl ain ant and the public servan t concerned.
(7) T he conduct of an inves tig ation [under th is Act agains t a publ ic serv ant]1 in respect of 38 any ac tion shall not af f ect such action, or any po wer or du ty of [any other public serv ant]1 to take f urther actio n with respect to any matter subject to the investig ation.
20. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the investigation initiated suo moto by the Upalokayukta, after making the preliminary enquiry as it deemed fit, is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and cannot be held to be barred under the provisions of the Act.
21. It is imperative that the phrase employed in Rule 20 of Rules, 1977 is "candidate", not 'public servant' or 'government servant'. A candidate found guilty of impersonation of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his/her recruitment may in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to a criminal prosecution and 39 to disciplinary action, be debarred either permanently or for a specified period. Much emphasis was placed on the phrase 'found guilty' to contend that the criminal matters are pending before the jurisdictional criminal court where no decision has been rendered regarding the charges levelled against the petitioners or convicting them for the offences alleged. It is well settled law that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.
22. It is settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase and sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself (vide Poppatlal Shah Vs. State of Madras) 1
23. It is well settled that a statute cannot be read in isolation, their colour and content are 1 AIR 1953 SC 274 40 derived from their context and every work in a statute is to be exercised in its context.
24. In the words of Justice Holmes, "A word is not a crystal transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used".
25. In the words of Hon'ble Justice Bhagavati as held in Union of India Vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth & others 2, a statute has to be read as a whole and in its context.
26. In the Book "principles of statutory interpretation" authored by Justice G.P.Singh, it is quoted thus:
"Accord ing to Su therl and, there is a bas ic f allacy in saying th at words h ave me aning in and of the mselves". As could be seen, the context as already discussed supra me ans, the 2 AIR 1977 S.C. 2328 41 statu te as a wh ole, the previous state of the law, the gener al scope of the s tatute and the mischief th at it was in tended to remedy". Thus, principles of purposive interpretation would be appropriate and most suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case rather than literal interpretation.
27. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the phrase 'found guilty' has to be interpreted in the context of the case. As such, 'found guilty' has to be understood as prima facie found guilty to initiate the disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority and not merely on the final verdict of any Court of law. If the arguments of the petitioners is to be accepted as to the final result of the criminal proceedings, the object and purport of the Rules, 1977 to initiate disciplinary proceedings would be defeated. There are umpteen number of cases where the accused person can be acquitted on the benefit of doubt by the criminal court. In such 42 circumstances of acquittal by the criminal court, if the arguments of the petitioners are accepted, it may lead to absurdity rendering the initiation of disciplinary proceedings redundant.
28. In the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. NEELAM NAG AND ANOTHER 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that there is no legal bar to conduct disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straight jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis.
29. In the case of DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. M.G.VITTAL RAO 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the issue as to whether 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 4 (2012) 1 SCC 442 43 disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when the delinquent employee is facing criminal trial, has been considered from time to time. Referring to STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B.K.MEENA 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it would be evident from the decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. If a criminal case is unduly 5 (1996) 6 SCC 417 44 delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interest of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. It is held that the disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. 45 It is not in the interest of administration alone but it serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest too.
30. The purpose of departmental enquiry and prosecution being two different and distinct aspects, i.e., the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service, pendency of the criminal proceedings lodged for an offence for violation of duty would not be a ground to deny the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the arguments of the petitioners that the Upalokayukta had no jurisdiction/competence to initiate proceedings against the petitioners is negated.
31. Clause (d) of the Second Schedule read with Section 8 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case as the Upalokayukta has invoked suo moto proceedings against the petitioners not considering the grievances relating to the appointments. Grievance and allegations being different, the 46 provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and (b) cannot be pressed, to deny the jurisdiction of the Upalokayukta.
Natural Justice:
32. In the case of GOPAL HANUMANTH KASE VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS 6, the coordinate bench of this court has held thus:
"In our vie w, at the g iven stage of
entrusting the matter f or inqu iry, the
Govern ment, as the Co mpe ten t Author ity, was not expected to enter in to a detail ed or even a su mmary inquiry with consideration of reply/def ence of the pe titioner. The impugned order dated 07.12.2017, re ad as a whole, makes it cle ar th at the satisf action of the Co mpetent Authority abou t ex istence of the prima f ac ie case has been indic ated therein and th at had been suff icient co mpliance of the requ ire men t of law."
6 ILR 2018 KAR 2347 47
33. The said judgment has reached finality. Thus, the contents of the report made under Section 12 (3) of the Act and the order passed by the Government, as the competent authority for entrusting the matter to the Upalokayukta for institution of departmental enquiry cannot be said to be suffering from non-application of mind. The gist and substance of the report made by the Upalokayutha has been considered by the Government while deciding to entrust the matter under Section 14 of the Act for investigation to Upalokayukta. Indeed, notices were issued to the petitioners to which reply/objections were filed by them denying the allegations made against them. The same not being found to be acceptable so as to drop the proceedings, reports were submitted before the State Government under the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act, as such no infraction of the 48 principles of natural justice is found in the action of the State Government/Upalokayukta. Article of Charges:
34. It is well settled law that Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12 would indicate the allegations/charges levelled against the petitioners which has not reached the final stage of adjudication and decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL DIRECTOR VS.
MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE 7 has held thus:
"5. T his Cour t in a large nu mber of cases has deprecated the prac tice of the H igh Cour ts en ter tain ing wr it petitions question ing legal ity of the sho w c ause notices stall ing enqu iries as proposed and re tarding investig ative process to f ind actu al f acts with the par tic ip ation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the H igh Court is satisf ied that the sho w c ause notice was to tally non est in the eye of law f or absolute wan t of jurisdic tion of the au thority to even inves tig ate into f acts, 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ( 3 ) S C C 4 4 0 ), 49 wr it pe titions should no t be entertained f or the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the wr it petitioner should invar iably be directed to respond to the sho w cause notice and take all stands h ighlighted in the wr it petition. Whe ther the sho w c ause notice was f ounded on any legal pre mises, is a jur isd iction al issue wh ich can even be urged by the recip ient of the no tice and such issues also can be adjudic ated by the au thority issu ing the very notice in itially, bef ore the aggrieved could approach the Cour t. Further, when the Court p asses an in terim order it should be c aref ul to see th at the statu tory f unction aries specially and spec if ically constitu ted f or the purpose are no t denuded of po wers and au thority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief wh ich may or may not be f inally gran ted in the wr it pe titio n is no t accorded to the wr it petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, gran ted."
35. The Article of Charges would not be conclusive of the charges levelled against the petitioners, the Tribunal or the Court could not analyze these factors at the stage in as much as 50 whether the said charges are true or could be gone into which necessarily requires to be adjudicated upon the production of evidence at the time of enquiry. It is for the delinquent officials to file objections and to contest the matter in the enquiry proceedings.
36. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in VIJAY KUMAR G.SULAKHE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 8 has held that ordinarily application/petition before the Tribunal or writ Court does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a 8 W.P.No.104460/2018 & connected matters D.D.10.9.2018 51 grievance or cause of action. Therefore, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS VS.
PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA 9 wherein paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 of the said judgment read thus:
"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide 9 (2012) 11 SCC 565 52 State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.)
10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-
sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge- sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.) 53
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
37. Thus, it has been held that the entrustment of the case by the State Government under Rule 14A of the KCSRs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayukta is not a ground to file applications before the KAT to challenge the 54 same which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
ANALYSIS
38. Having regard to the words "who is or was at any time" as enumerated in Section 2(12) of the Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners would certainly come within the ambit of public servant as defined in clause(12) of Section 2 of the Act since indisputably, on the date of initiating proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, they were the public servants. Hence, applying Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 which employs the phrase "candidates" and public servant as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, it can be held that the petitioners not holding the public office as on the date of the alleged misconduct, would not disentitle the Upalokayukta to initiate investigation proceedings against them.
55
39. Section 9 of the Act, 1984 empowers the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta to conduct any investigation under the Act, after making such preliminary enquiry as it deemed fit to initiate investigation suo moto under Sub Sections (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section 7. Such exercise of suo-moto power by Upalokayukta after forwarding the opinion recorded by him to initiate such investigation, duly following the principles of natural justice as required, cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
40. In the case of KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 10, the coordinate bench of this Court while considering Section 9 of the Act has held that Section 9 of the Act is not a provision of appeal but it is in the nature of original jurisdiction. This judgment was rendered in 10 (2015 (6) KLJ 381) 56 the context of the case where a recommendation must be made to the Competent Authority to redress the grievance of the complaint by canceling the mining lease and the licence of the petitioner if already granted or to reject application for renewal of mining lease and also to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As aforesaid, the proceedings hereunder not being initiated on any complaint made by any person but under Section 9 (3) initiating suo moto proceedings, the said judgment would be of little assistance to the petitioners herein.
41. In the case of DR. K.LALITHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 11, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has observed that if Lokayukta or Upalokayukta is satisfied that allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by 11 (2019 (4) KLJ 344) 57 report communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents and materials and other evidence to the Competent Authority. On receipt of such report, the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 12 shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3). Firstly, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall be satisfied that there are material documents and other evidence. Secondly, the Competent Authority shall examine the report forwarded to it in relation to the allegations made. There is no cavil on this legal proposition.
42. In the case of R.V.JATTANNA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.105359/2019 and connected matters (DD 30.01.2020), another co-ordinate bench of this court has held that the report under Section 12 (3) of the Act would be sent by Upalokayukta after satisfying himself that the allegations are wholly or 58 partially true and after expressing his satisfaction he would send a report under the above said provisions. Therefore, when a highest functionary of the said institution and particularly after taking into consideration the above said criterias, sends a report, such report should not be in any manner taken by any person in a casual manner, lot of sanctity and weightage is attached to such reports. Thus, the Government which has the power as parent prageria of almost all the employees of the government department and other public servants who work in various other public institutions, to receive the report submitted by Lokayukta/Upalokayukta under Section 12 (3) is empowered to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta if any further disciplinary enquiry to be conducted. The Government has all the powers which the disciplinary authority has got to refer the matter to the Upalokayukta to conduct the disciplinary enquiry 59 and to report back to the government. It is categorically observed that there is absolutely no illegality or irregularity committed by the government in receiving the preliminary investigation report under Section 12 (3) of the Act and thereafter again referring the matter to the Upalokayukta for conducting the disciplinary enquiry.
43. In the case of M.A.Partha Sarathy v/s The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and others 12, learned Single Judge of this court has observed thus:
" 26. T heref ore, under the sche me of the Act, the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta are conf erred po wer to investig ate in to a co mpl ain t involving a grievance or allegatio n against a publ ic servan t. Section 7 de als with the po wer and the sub jec t matter of investigation by the Lokayuk ta and Upa Lok ayukta. The grievance or the alleg ation should be in respect of an ac tion as def ined under the Act. T he jurisdic tion of Lokayuk ta and UPa lokayukta do not extend beyond wh at is specif ic ally contained in Sec tion 7 of the ac t. They have no jurisdic tion to entertain a co mplaint agains t a person other than a public serv ant as def ined under the Act. He has no t been conf erred any po wer to investig ate a grievance or an allegation ag ainst a pr ivate ind ivid ual. He has 12 ILR 2009 KAR 2216 60 not been conf erred the po wer to in vestig ate into the title of the property standing in the name of a priv ate indiv idual. He h as not been conf erred any po wer to go into the val idity of a sale deed, a W ill, a gif t deed executed by a priv ate indiv idual in f avour of another pr ivate indiv idual, on the ground th at the said sub jec t matter of the alienation is a public property. T hey are all matters exclusively f alling with in the jur isd iction of Civ il Courts and Lok ayukth a cannot usurp the po wer of civil Court under the guise of inves tigation under th e Ac t. T he investig ation to be conducted is only with ref erence to the ac tion of the public serv ant, and the abuse of such off ice, allegations of corruption, nepotis m, lack of inte grity on the part of public servan t, and any illeg al gains made by such public servan t."
The grievance of the complainant therein was that the disputed land belongs to the Forest Department, Government of Karnataka. One Sri M.A.Srinivasan had created documents showing that the said land has been purchased by him in pursuance of a sale deed executed by the personal secretary of the Maharaja No specific complaint by name being made against any public servant responsible for the actions complained, the writ court has held that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to 61 investigate the title of the petitioner therein, relating to the disputed property in their absence. Hence, though there is no cavil on the legal proposition, the said judgment would be of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is well settled by series of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet/show cause notice. A mere charge sheet/show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action.
CONCLUSION:
In the light of the judgments referred to above and for the reasons aforesaid, the view of the KSAT cannot be held to be unjustifiable. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. No illegality or irregularity is found in the action of the 62 State Government in receiving the report under Section 12(3) of the Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta and thereafter referring the matter to the Upa Lokayukta for conducting displinery enquiry. Hence, the writ petitions fail and accordingly stand dismissed.
However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court, while deciding the writ petitions, shall not influence the inquiry officer/disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer shall take decision independently and strictly in accordance with law.
All the pending IAs stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CLK/JTR/DVR