Karnataka High Court
Ganapati vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.201498/2018 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
Ganapati S/o Jettigaraya Shinde
Age: 59 years, Occ: Librarian
R/o: Behind Commercial Office
Opp. To University, Sedam Road
Kalaburagi-585 104
... Petitioner
(By Sri Amresh S.Roja, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Department of Education
(Higher Education)
M.S.Building, Bangalore-32
Represented by its Secretary
2. The Upa-Lokayukta
Karnataka Lokayukta
Multi Storied Building
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedi
Bangalore-560 001
2
3. The Registrar
Karnataka Lokayukta
Multi Storied Building
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedi
Bangalore-560 001
4. The Superintendent of Police
Karnataka Lokayukta
Aiwan-E-Shahi
Kalaburagi-585 104
5. Gulbarga University
Kalaburagi-585 104
Represented by its Registrar
6. Nagappa S/o Ranappa Khyatha
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Srinivas Saradagi, Tq:Kalaburagi
Dist: Kalaburagi-585 104
... Respondents
(By Sri M.C. Basareddy, HCGP for R1;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Spl.PP for R2 to R4;
Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Advocate for R5;
Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., Advocate for R6)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the Annexure-E dated
16.09.2016 in No. Complaint : Upalok/GLB-519/2015/DRE-3 issued by 3 rd
respondent, Annexure-E2 dated 14.02.2017 in No.Compt/Uplok/GLB-519
& 2232/2015/DRE-3 issued by 2nd respondent, Annexure-F dated
26.04.2017 in No. ED 30 UGV 2017 issued by 1st respondent, Annexure-
G dated 02.05.2017 in No. UPLOK-1/DE/614/2017 issued by 2 nd
respondent, and Annexure-H dated 07.09.2017 in No. Uplok-
1/DE/614/2017/ARE-10 issued by 3rd respondent.
This petition coming on for final disposal this day, S.R.Krishna
Kumar J., made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioner who was initially appointed as a Librarian in the Ambedkar Pre-University College was subsequently appointed as a Deputy Librarian in respondent No.5 -
Gulbarga University (for short, 'the University') in the year 1985 and his service conditions were governed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short 'the Universities Act') on the basis of which the University has framed a statute regulating disciplinary action/proceedings in respect of non-teaching employees of the University including the petitioner. Clause-9 of the Statute provides for disciplinary action/proceedings whilst clause-10 generally provides for adoption of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1957 (for short 'the CCA Rules').
2. It is contended that from the date of his appointment petitioner has been discharging his duties with integrity without any complaints nor was he subjected to any disciplinary action by the University under the Universities Act or the Statute/Rules/Regulations framed by the University.
43. Pursuant to a complaint dated 05.01.2015 submitted by respondent No.6 to the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, the respondent No.3 - Registrar, Lokayukta issued an endorsement dated 16.09.2016 calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the complaint made against him. The petitioner having submitted his detailed reply on 03.10.2016 along with all relevant documents, the respondent No.2 - Upalokayukta prepared a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Lokayukta Act') recommending to the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to entrust the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The said report was forwarded to the Competent Authority i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary who entrusted the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner to the respondents 2 and 3 - Lokayukta pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer issued Articles of Charge dated 07.09.2017 and called upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 5 23.10.2017 on which day the petitioner filed his detailed written statement/objections denying all the allegations and inter alia contending that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules were not applicable to the petitioner who was governed by independent and separate Statute framed by the University including disciplinary action/proceedings against the petitioner.
It was therefore contended that the entrustment of the enquiry by the competent authority to the Lokayukta was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and the said order dated 26.04.2017 entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be dropped. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Lokayukta is proceeding further with the matter and as such, petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.
4. The respondent No.1 - State has filed its statement of objections and has opposed the petition by denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and inter alia contending that vide a notification dated 07.07.1990 issued by 6 the University, the CCA Rules have been adopted by the University with effect from 20.08.1988. It is therefore contended that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is applicable to the employees of the Gulbarga University including the petitioner and consequently the entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta by the State Government who is the competent authority and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are legal and proper and consequently, there is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed.
5. Respondents 2 and 3 - Lokayukta have also filed their statement of objections opposing the petition and denying the allegations made therein and inter alia contending that the petitioner was guilty of violating Rules 21 and 23 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and as such, apart from the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and the Gulbarga University is an University within the meaning of the Lokayukta Act, the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta and all proceedings pursuant 7 thereto are legal and proper and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for the other respondents and perused the material on record.
7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
(a) The Gulbarga University had framed the statute pursuant to the provisions of the Universities Act 1976 which govern the service conditions of the petitioner; Clause-9 of the said Statute contemplates disciplinary action/proceedings to be taken against the employees of the University including the petitioner and as such, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules stand excluded and are not applicable to the employees of the Gulbarga University including the petitioner; it is therefore contended that so long as Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules are not 8 applicable to the petitioner, the entrustment of the enquiry by the State Government to the Lokayukta by invoking Rule 14-A is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserves to be quashed.
(b) Adverting to clause-10 of the Statute which generally purports to adopt the CCA Rules to the employees of the Gulbarga University, it is contended that the said clause-10 merely seeks to adopt in a general manner the CCA Rules and in the absence of Rule 14-A being specifically adopted to the Statute which regulates disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the question of invoking Rule 14-A does not arise; it is contended that mere general reference or adoption of the CCA Rules to the Statute framed by the Gulbarga University was not sufficient to lead to an inference that Rule 14-A had also been adopted and it was essential that Rule 14-A was expressly and specifically adopted and incorporated into the statute which regulates disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and in the absence of the same, invocation of Rule 14-A by the 9 competent authority for the purpose of entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta is vitiated on this ground also.
(c) Thirdly it is contended that though the petitioner is a public servant being an employee of the Gulbarga University, he is not a Government servant as defined under the CCA Rules; it is contended that the CCA Rules apply only to a person who is a Government servant and not to all public servants and so long as the petitioner was not a Government servant within the meaning ascribed to it under the CCA Rules, Rule 14-A would not apply to the petitioner and on this ground also, the impugned order passed by the competent authority entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed.
(d) The petitioner was undisputedly an employee of the Gulbarga University and not an employee of the State Government and consequently, since the employer of the petitioner was the University only and not the State Government, the State Government which was not the 10 employer of the petitioner did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner, much less, entrust the enquiry to the Lokayukta particularly when there is no employer - employee relationship between the State Government and the petitioner.
(e) Lastly it is contended that a perusal of the complaint given against the petitioner and the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner will clearly indicate that the complaint contains false and frivolous allegations without any basis and consequently the report submitted by Upalokayukta and the entrustment of the enquiry by the competent authority were clearly illegally, arbitrary and without any application of mind as well as without assigning proper or cogent reasons and on this ground also, the impugned report submitted by the Upalokayukta and all proceedings pursuant thereto are vitiated and deserve to be quashed.
(f) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:11
(i) R.F. Hudedavar vs. State of Karnataka and others
- W.P.No.12300/2020 & connected matters dated 23.07.2021.
(ii) Sri Sannamallappa vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
-WP 46539/2018 dated 5.8.2021.
(iii) Professor S.N. Hegde vs. the Lokayukta Bangalore and others - 2004 (3) Kar.L.J. 505.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for the other respondents, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and referring to the material on record submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions it is relevant to state that the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Librarian (Non-teaching staff) of the Gulbarga University under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.
Sections 35 and 36 of the said Act of 1976 enable and empower the Gulbarga University to frame statutes, 12 ordinances, rules, etc. in relation to the service conditions of its employees including disciplinary proceedings/action against them. It is an undisputed fact that by exercising powers under Sections 35 and 36 of the said Act of 1976, the Gulbarga University has framed an statute; Clause No.9 of the said Statute prescribes Rules and Regulations for the purpose of initiating disciplinary action/ enquiry against the employees of the University including the petitioner.
10. It is relevant to state that the aforesaid Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 was repealed and substituted by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Section 86 of the said Act of 2000 which deals with repeal and savings specifically contemplates that the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act shall be applicable in respect of the said Act of 1976; it is also not in dispute that after the said Act of 2000 came into force on 13.09.2001, the Gulbarga University has not framed any other statute with regard to the service conditions including disciplinary proceedings/action against its employees; it 13 follows therefrom that the statute framed by the Gulbarga University pursuant to the said Act of 1976 still remains in force and the rules, regulations, etc. under the said statute continue to apply to the employees of the University including the petitioner.
11. As stated supra, clause-9 of the statute framed by the Gulbarga University provides for disciplinary action/proceedings against the employees of the Gulbarga University. As noticed above, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that in the face of clause No.9 of the statute framed by the Gulbarga University, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules does not apply particularly when Rule 14-A has not been specifically/expressly adopted by the Gulbarga University in its statute and/or rules or regulations.
12. All the questions that arise for consideration in the present petition viz. applicability of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules in relation to employees of statutory authorities, boards, organizations, bodies, etc. which have separate statutes, 14 rules, regulations, etc. governing disciplinary action/proceedings to be taken against its employees as well as applicability of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules to public servants who are not Government servants came up for consideration before this court in the case of Sri R.F. Hudedavar's case supra, wherein the Division Bench of this court held as under:
" 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Rakshitha D.J. contended that the petitioners were the employees of KRIDL. That KRIDL initially was "Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited" and in the year 2009, it was transformed as KRIDL. On the basis of the complaint made against the petitioners, detailed preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted under Section 12(3) of the KL Act to the State Government. The State Government on receipt of the said report, entrusted the disciplinary inquiry to be conducted to the Lokayukta, under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules against the petitioners. It was submitted that these petitioners are governed by the Cadre and Recruitment Rules ('C&R Rules' for short) of KRIDL. Under the said C&R Rules, Chapter VIII deals with Conduct Rules (General) and Chapter IX concerns Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. The procedure for imposing major penalties is under Rule 96, while procedure for imposing minor penalties is under Rule 97. Appeals against orders imposing penalties are under Rule 99. The C&R Rules came into effect on 20.09.1996. The petitioners are governed by a separate C&R Rules and hence, the State Government could not have entrusted the inquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the Lokayukta. This is because the Managing Director of KRIDL is the Disciplinary Authority and hence, the inquiry could not have been entrusted by the State Government to the Lokayukta. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, when there are special C&R Rules envisaged for the employees of 15 the KRIDL, the General Rules namely, CCA Rules, 1957 will not apply.
7. It was next contended by the petitioner's counsel that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules applies only to the State Government servants. The said Rules are not applicable to the employees of KRIDL, as it is a public sector unit or a Government Company; its employees are public servants, but not Government servants. It was submitted that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules applies only to Government servants and not to public servants. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules which defines 'Government Servant' and further, Rule 3(1)(d) which speaks about the applicability of the Rules. It was contended that having regard to the conjoint reading of the said two Rules, the employees of the KRIDL are not Government servants within the scope and ambit of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.
8. It was reiterated that when a separate set of Rules have been envisaged for the employees of KRIDL in the form of C&R Rules, the general Rules-- namely CCA Rules which are applicable to the Government servants-- could not have been invoked insofar as the petitioners are concerned for entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) Sri. B.Neelakant vs. Managing Director, Dharwad, having Gadag and Uttara Kannada Districts Co-op Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., [ILR 2019 KAR 4857 (DB)] (Sri. B.Neelakant);
ii) Sri.M.P.Jaishankar vs. The State of Karnataka, W.P.Nos.1983- 1985/2014, disposed of on 16 01.09.2014 (Sri.M.P.Jaishankar);
ii) Sri.B.N.Nagendra Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka, W.P. No.10999- 11006/2017, disposed of on 15.06.2019 (Sri.B.N.Nagendra Kumar);
iii) Sri.Sanjeev Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka, W.P. No.205398/2019, disposed of on 24.02.2020 (Sri.Sanjeev Kumar);
iv) Sri.G.B.Devaraj vs. The State of
Karnataka, W.P. No.8374/2019,
disposed of on 11.12.2020
(Sri.G.B.Devaraj);
9. It was further contended that so long as the CCA Rules have not been adopted under the C&R Rules of the KRIDL, the CCA Rules cannot be made applicable to the employees of the KRIDL. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 39 of the C&R Rules which states that Karnataka Land Army Corporation Service Rules and Standing Orders and all other Rules for the time being in force, regulating the service conditions of employees of the Corporation insofar as such Rules are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, shall not be applicable to persons appointed under these Rules.
Moreover, in the absence of specific provisions in these Rules, the Rules provided in the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules, may be invoked by the Board, which means that if there are specific provisions in C&R Rules, the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules cannot be applied.
10. It was emphasized that having regard to Chapter IX of C&R Rules, which prescribes the manner in which an inquiry has to be conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment, whether major or minor, could be imposed under the Rules, the State Government could not 17 have taken upon itself to exercise power to entrust the inquiry against the petitioners under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, to the Lokayukta. It was urged that so long as there is no adoption of the CCA Rules by KRIDL, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules would not apply to the employees of the KRIDL, such as the petitioners herein, although they are public servants but not Government servants. It was contended that the State Government, on receipt of report under Section 12(3) of the KL Act, ought to have entrusted the matter to KRIDL, which is the Disciplinary Authority for the petitioners and not the Lokayukta, to conduct the inquiry against them. Therefore, the State Government ought to have sent the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the KL Act to the Managing Director of KRIDL for taking appropriate action on the same.
11. While considering the aforesaid submissions, we shall elaborate on the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the relevant provisions of law.
12. Sri.Raghavendra G.Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.45764/2017, while adopting the aforesaid submissions of Smt.Rakshitha D.J., also contended that in the aforesaid case, as far as this petitioner is concerned, there has not only been an infraction of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules in entrusting the inquiry against the said petitioner to the Lokayukta, there are other violations also.
13. He submitted that Section 9(3)(a) of the KL Act has not been complied with in the instant case inasmuch as the copy of the complaint was not furnished to the petitioners at the time of investigation and there was no reply sought. The same is a mandatory requirement. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of N.Gundappa vs. State of Karnataka, [ILR 1990 KAR 223]; State of Karnataka vs. N.Gundappa, [ILR 1990 KAR 4188 (DB)] (N.Gundappa). Reliance was also placed on S.Ranganarasaiah vs. State of 18 Karnataka [ILR 1994 KAR 3595 (DB)] (S.Ranganarasaiah).
14. It was further submitted that in the instant case, Rule 214(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) has been violated inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner in this case pertain to the year 2008-
09. The complaint was made in the year 2012. The initiation of inquiry by issuance of Articles of charges has been on 31.05.2017. More than four years have lapsed in the instant case and hence, there could not have been any initiation of an inquiry against the petitioner herein. It was further submitted that there is no Rule under the C&R Rules of KRIDL to initiate or continue an inquiry after the retirement of an employee. Therefore, the entire proceedings would have to be quashed in the instant case.
15. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State / respondent No.1 supported the order of entrustment of inquiry made under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. She placed reliance on Rule 39(b) of the C&R Rules. She also submitted that after the learned Single Judge's order in the case of G.B.Devaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, in W.P. No.8374/2019 (S- RES) disposed of on 11.12.2020 (G.B.Devaraj), there has been an amendment made by incorporation of Rule 96-A to the C&R Rules. By virtue of the said amendment made to the C&R Rules, "Special Procedure in Certain Cases of Misconduct" has been inserted pursuant to 202nd Meeting of KRIDL held on 20.04.2021. Therefore, where the investigation against the employees of KRIDL has been made by the Lokayukta and a report has been submitted under Section 12(2) of the KL Act to the State Government, the same shall now be forwarded along with recommendations to the KRIDL. The KRIDL is now empowered to entrust an inquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or by an officer authorisied by the said authorities. When such an inquiry is entrusted by KRIDL to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or its officers, they shall have the power of inquiry authority under the said Rules. After completion of the inquiry, the records of 19 the case with the findings of the inquiry officer and the recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be, shall be sent to the KRIDL which can take action in accordance with Rule 96 of the C&R Rules and to impose any penalty under Rule 94 of the C&R Rules. Further, a Committee has been set up for examining the recommendations of the Lokayukta or Upa- lokayukta before taking a final decision. Hence, it was contended that in view of the insertion of Rule 96-A to the C&R Rules, there can be an entrustment of the inquiry to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta.
16. It was further submitted that under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, there can be a joint inquiry of two or more Government servants through a common proceedings. However, to distinguish and define charges against the individual Government servants, it cannot be combined into a common Article of charges and a joint inquiry cannot be held.
17. Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the KRIDL in W.P. No.45764/2017 submitted that the petitioners are not Government servants as per Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules. Therefore, invocation of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is per se illegal in these cases.
18. That in the absence of specific provisions to the contrary in the C&R Rules, Rule 214 of the KCSRs, which is not inconsistent with the C&R Rules, is applicable to the employees of the KRIDL.
19. Sri.Pawan Kumar, the other learned counsel appearing for the KRIDL submitted that Rule 39 of the C&R Rules must be pressed into service while considering an interpretation of the C&R Rules. That Rule 96-A of the C&R Rules is applicable in the instant cases. It was submitted that the amended Rule 96-A of the C&R Rules is not prospective in nature.
2020. Sri.Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta, submitted that the complaint against the petitioners was given to the Office of the Lokayukta. A preliminary inquiry was conducted as per Rule 9 of the KL Act and a report was submitted under Rule 12(3) thereof to the State Government which is the competent authority.
21. It was next contended that Section 9(3)(a) of the KL Act has been complied with in the instant case inasmuch as a copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner in W.P.No.45764/2017 and his response was sought and therefore, there was no violation of Section 9(3)(a) of the KL Act insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.45764/2017 is concerned.
22. Learned counsel, Sri.Arabatti, further submitted, even though Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules do not apply on the report of the Lokayukta, as per Section 12(2) of the KL Act, the Disciplinary Authority of the KRIDL can entrust an inquiry to the Lokayukta as an inquiring authority and there is no bar in law to do so. It was submitted that in the instant case, the Managing Director, the Disciplinary Authority of the KRIDL, could also resort to the said procedure and therefore, the State Government invoking Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is not per se illegal. This is particularly so after the insertion of Rule 96A to the C&R Rules. Learned counsel Sri.Arabatti submitted that there is no merit in these petitions and the same may be dismissed.
23. We have narrated in detail the facts in each of these cases. The common ground of attack in all these cases is, pursuant to the complaints made before the Lokayukta, preliminary inquiry was conducted under the provisions of Section 9 and other provisions of the KL Act and a report was submitted under Section 12(2) of the KL Act to the State Government which is the competent authority under the KL Act. But, the State Government could not have entrusted the inquiry to be conducted by the Lokayukta as against the petitioners herein as they are not Government servants within the meaning of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules 21 but are only public servants.
24. Before proceeding further with the aforesaid issue raised in these cases, it will be useful to extract the relevant legal provisions as under:
The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984:
Section 2(4):
2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
x x x (4) "Competent Authority" in relation to a public servant means,-
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion;
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant
other than a Secretary, the Government
of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public servant,
such authority as may be prescribed;
---*---
Section 2(6):
(6) "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or any person, whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government 22 or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka;
---*---
(12) "Public servant" means a person who is or was at any time,-
(a) the Chief Minister;
(b) a Minister;
(c)a Member of the State Legislature;
(d) a Government servant;
(e) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of a local authority in the State of Karnataka or a statutory body or corporation established by or under any law of the State Legislature, including a co- operative society, or a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and such other corporations or boards as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest in such corporations or boards, by notification, from time to time, specify;
(f) member of a Committee or Board, statutory or non-
statutory, constituted by the Government;
(g) a person in the service of pay of,-
(i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka;
(ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or Corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification, from time to time, specify;
(iii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company 23 which is a subsidiary of such company;
(iv) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the Official Gazette;
(v) a co-operative Society;
(vi) a university;
Explanation- In this clause, "co-operative society"
means a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and "university" means a university established or deemed to be established by or under any law of the State Legislature;
---*---
Section 9:
9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta.
Provided that in case of a grievance, if the person aggrieved is dead or for any reason, unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made or if it is already made, may be prosecuted by his legal representatives or by any other person who is authorized by him in writing in this behalf.
(2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by an affidavit and in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upa- lokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit to conduct any investigation under this Act, he-
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case 24 of an investigation initiated suo-motu by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section 7 to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned;
(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 7 as the case may be;
(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit.
(4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta, as the case maybe, considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if, in his opinion,-
(a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith;
(b) There are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or
(c) Other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies.
(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upa- lokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint 25 he shall record his reasons there for and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned.
(7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a Public servant in respect of any action shall not affect suchaction, or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation.
---*---
Section:12
12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the Competent Authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report.
(2) The Competent Authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta the action taken on the report.
(3) If, after investigation of any action involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa- lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.
(4) The Competent Authority shall examine the 26 report forwarded to it under sub- section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.
(5) If the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the Competent authority concerned and the complainant.
(6) The Lokayukta shall present on or before 31st October of ever year, a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upa- lokayukta under this Act to the Governor.
(7) On receipt of the special report under sub- section (5), or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.
(8) The Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate.
---*---
The Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985:
3. Competent Authority.--In respect of the public servants referred to in sub-clause (d) of clause (4) of Section 2, the Government of Karnataka shall be the 27 Competent Authority.
---*---
CCA Rules:
Rule 2
2. Interpretation.--In theseRules, unless the context otherwise requires.--
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) 'Disciplinary Authority' in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Government servant means the authority competent under these rules to impose on him that penalty;
(d) 'Government servant' means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a Civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka.
(e) 'Governor' means the Governor of Karnataka;
---*---
Rule 3:
3. Application.-(1) These rules apply to all Government servants except:-
(a) Persons employed in any Industrial undertaking of the Government other than the Government Central Press, Bangalore, Government Branch Press, Mysore and Government Branch Press, Mercara, to whom 28 the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946), are applicable.
(b) Persons in casual employment;
(c) Persons subject to discharge from service on less than one month's notice;
(d) Persons for whose appointment and other matters covered by these rules, special provisions are made by or under any law for the time being in force, or in any contract, in regard to the matters covered by such law or such contract; and
(e) members of the All India Services.
(2) x x x
---*---
Rule 14-A. 14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta.--(1) The provisions of sub- rule (2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government Servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or an Upa- lokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on reference from Government (or where offences alleged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21st day of December, 1992.
xxx Explanation:
In this rule, the expressions "Lokayukta" and "Upa- lokayukta" shall respectively have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Lokayukta 29 Act,1984 (and the expression "Karnataka Lokayukta Police" means the police wing established under Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and includes, so far as may be, the corresponding establishment under the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission Rules, 1980, and the expression "Inspector-General of Police" shall be construed accordingly.
---*---
Rule 2(2)(iv) of KCSRs:
2. Application.--(1) x x x (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), these rules shall not apply to.--
(i) x x x
(iv) Persons for whose appointment and other matters covered by these Rules, special provisions are made by or under any law for the time being in force, or in any contract in regard to the matters covered by such law or such contracts; and
(v) xxx
---*---
Rule 214:
214. (1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence.-The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is 30 found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-
employment after retirement.
(b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension:-The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a foreign employer under whom the Government servant has worked on deputation or otherwise along with interest at eight per cent per annum from the date of occurrence of pecuniary loss to Government. If in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon re- employment after retirement:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum pension prescribed under the rules.
(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority other than Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in 31 service, whether before his retirement or during his re-
employment.-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub- rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 214-A shall be sanctioned.
(5) Where the Government decided not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant.
(6) For the purpose of this rule.-
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if 32 the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted.-
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance is made; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court.
******
25. Section 12 of the KL Act refers to the expression "competent authority" to which the report has to be sent under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the KL Act, on a preliminary investigation being made on a complaint under Section 9 thereof by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. The expression "competent authority" in relation to a public servant is defined under Section 2(4) of the KL Act to mean, inter alia, such authority as may be prescribed.
26. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 ('KL Rules' for short), prescribes that in respect of the public servants referred to in sub-clause (d) of clause (4) of Section 2, the Government of Karnataka shall be the Competent Authority. The expression "public servant" is defined in Section 2(12) of the KL Act, to mean, inter alia, a person in the service or pay of, a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other Board or Corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein by notification, from time to time, specify; a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company which is a subsidiary of such company.
27. Thus, the report submitted under Section 12(2) of the KL Act is to the competent authority. On an analysis of the 33 aforesaid provisions insofar as a Government Company or a Corporation is concerned, an employee under the service of such a Company is a public servant and in the case of a public servant, the competent authority is the Government of Karnataka in terms of Rule 3 of the KL Rules.
28. While the definition of "public servant" is under Section 2(12) of the KL Act, it is noted that Section 2(6) of the said Act defines a "Government Servant" to mean a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or any person whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka.
29. The entrustment of the inquiry in the instant case has been made by the State Government, which is the competent authority under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, to the Lokayukta, which is questioned by the petitioners herein. It is necessary to note that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules applies only to Government servants and not public servants. As to the definition of Government servants under CCA Rules is concerned, Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules defines a "Government Servant" in identical terms as "Government Servant" is defined under the KL Act. The expression 'Government servant' under the CCA Rules does not include within its scope and ambit a 'public servant'. The same is also the position on a reading of the definitions of "Government servant" and "public servant" under the KL Act. Therefore, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules applies to a "Government servant" and not to a "public servant". That is why the expression "Government servant" is defined under Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules but the said Rules do not define a "public servant". On the other hand, a reading of Rule 3 of CCA Rules would make the position clear inasmuch as, while the CCA Rules apply to all Government servants, Rule 3 of the CCA Rules is an exception. On a reading 34 of the same, it is clear that the CCA Rules do not apply to persons for whose appointment and other matters are not covered by those Rules, as special provisions are made by or under any law for the time being in force or in any contract, in regard to the matters covered by such law or such contract. In other words, the CCA Rules would not apply to those public servants who are covered by special provisions or by any contract with regard to matters covered by such law or such contract. Therefore, when there are separate Rules, which are applicable to the employees of a statutory body or a Government Company or a subsidiary of a Government company, the CCA Rules do not apply, just as in the instant cases, there are separate Rules in the form of C&R Rules applicable to the employees of the KRIDL.
30. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 14-A with Rules 2(d) and 3 of the CCA Rules, it is evident that the CCA Rules are not applicable to the petitioners in the instant cases. Although, the employees of such a statutory body or a Corporation or a Government company are "public servants" and therefore, the provisions of KL Act applies to them, they are not "Government servants" within the meaning of Rule 2(d) read with Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. Thus, even though under the provisions of KL Act and the KL Rules, the competent authority for employees of such a statutory body or a Corporation or a Government Company (who are in any case public servants within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the KL Act) is the Government of Karnataka, but, such employees are "not Government servants" within the meaning of Rules 2(d) and 3 of the CCA Rules. Hence, on receipt of a report under Section 12(2) of the KL Act by the competent authority, namely, the Government of Karnataka, vis-à-vis the employees of such statutory bodies or Corporation or Government Companies, such as KRIDL in the instant case, it has to be sent to the Disciplinary Authority under the C&R Rules of KRIDL for the purpose of taking a decision with regard to the conduct of inquiry and not directly entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. In other words, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules applies only to "Government servants" as defined under Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules and as excepted under Rule 3 thereof. The object of submitting the Report under Section 12(2) of the KL Act to the State Government (competent authority) is to appraise the State Government about the enquiry made against a "public 35 servant" by the Lokayukta/Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be.
31. Therefore, we find considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules does not apply to the employees of the KRIDL such as the petitioners herein. Even though they may be "public servants" within the meaning of the KL Act, they are not "Government Servants" within the meaning of the said Act as well as CCA Rules. Though the Government of Karnataka is the competent authority under the KL Act, the petitioners, not being Government Servants under the provisions of the CCA Rules, the entrustment of the inquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the Lokayukta is without power and jurisdiction. On that short ground alone, orders passed by the State Government entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta are liable to be quashed.
32. But, the matter does not end. A contention was raised at the Bar that irrespective of the applicability of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the employees of the KRIDL, under the provisions of the C&R Rules, entrustment of inquiry could be made by the Disciplinary Authority of the KRIDL to the Lokayukta and the same is not a bar under the C&R Rules. This is because, the Disciplinary Authority can entrust the inquiry to any independent inquiring authority including the Lokayukta and therefore, even if the order of entrustment made by the Government of Karnataka in the instant case is liable to be quashed, the said entrustment could be made by the Disciplinary Authority of KRIDL under the C&R Rules.
33. In this regard, a two-fold contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents: firstly, having regard to Rule 39 of the C&R Rules, the inquiry could be entrusted by the Disciplinary Authority of the KRIDL to the Lokayukta. Even if, for any reason, Rule 39 of the C&R Rules, which is an omnibus provision does not apply, the inquiry could be entrusted under the C&R Rules by the Disciplinary Authority 36 of the KRIDL to the Lokayukta in view of the amendment made to the C&R Rules by incorporation of Rule 96-A. Thus, the State Government cannot do so under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.
34. Secondly, insertion of Rule 96-A to the C&R Rules enables such entrustment to be made by the Disciplinary Authority under the CCA Rules. The said Rule was inserted with effect from 20.04.2021 and hence, the same could be considered once the investigation is made by the Lokayukta and the report is submitted under Section 12(2) of the KL Act to the competent authority, namely, the State Government insofar as the employees of the KRIDL is concerned. The State Government must thereafter transmit the report to the Disciplinary Authority under KRIDL. The said Disciplinary Authority can then take a decision for entrustment of the inquiry against any of its employees on the basis of Section 12(2) report, to the Lokayukta. There can be no controversy on that score. However, the controversy in the instant cases is, in the absence of such a Rule, namely, Rule 96-A being inserted to the C&R Rules of the KRIDL, whether the State Government could have suo motu entrusted the inquiry to the Lokayukta. This is also in the absence of adoption of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the C&R Rules of KRIDL.
35. Having regard to the aforesaid analysis and interpretation made by us above, we do not think Rule 39 of C&R Rules enabled entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta as it is a general provision. There was also no specific adoption of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules by KRIDL under its C&R Rules. Of course, now, in view of the insertion of Rule 96-A to the C&R Rules of KRIDL, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority of KRIDL, on receipt of Section 12(2) report from the State Government which is the competent authority under KL Act, to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta. Thus, it is by virtue of Rule 96-A of the C&R Rules and not on the basis of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules that there can be entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta insofar as employees of KRIDL are concerned. But, the fact remains that on receipt of Section 12(2) report by the State Government in respect of an employee of the KRIDL, the State Government, though a competent authority 37 under the provisions of the KL Act, has to transmit the same to the Disciplinary Authority under the C&R Rules of KRIDL, for taking further action in the matter. In other words, the State Government, merely because it is the competent authority under the provisions of the KL Act and Rules made thereunder cannot suo motu or unilaterally entrust the inquiry vis-à-vis the employees of KRIDL to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules bypassing the Disciplinary Authority under C&R Rules of KRIDL.
36. The relevant judgments cited at the Bar are discussed hereunder:
(a) In Shankar vs. Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited, [ILR 1996 KAR 1407], this Court has observed that the background note to the Resolution of the 74th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited was passed not with a view to totally supplant the extant Rules framed by the said Corporation, but supplement the same so as to cover all such situations as they were not specifically provided for, or covered by the Rules framed by it. This would mean that Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) would be applicable only in regard to matters which were not otherwise covered by the Rules framed by the said Corporation. In other words, the adoption of KCSRs was not a measure aimed at aggregating the existing Rules and wherever the Corporation Rules made a provision, the KCSRs would have no application. This would lead to a harmonious construction of two sets of Rules.
(b) In W.P. Nos.36917-36919 of 2015 [GM- KLA] (between K.S.Shivalingappa vs. State of Karnataka, disposed of on 29.02.2016), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court followed the decision in M.P.Jaishankar and held that the CCA Rules are not applicable to the 38 Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board as there were separate service regulations framed for the said entity. Thus, when the Rules are not applicable, the order for initiation of the inquiry under the said rules and the action taken in furtherance thereof could not stand in the eye of law.
(c) In Sri.M.P.Jaishankar vs. The State of Karnataka and others, (W.P.Nos.1983-
86/2014, disposed of on 01.09.2014), (Sri.M.P.Jaishankar) this Court has held as under:
"7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 does not dispute that the employees of the KIADB are not governed by Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
8. When separate service regulations are framed by respondent No.4 and when it has not adopted the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, question of entrusting the enquiry to respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 by the respondent No.4 does not arise.
9. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of. The order passed by the respondent No.4 entrusting the matter to Upa-lokayukta to hold enquiry and further order passed therein by the Upa-lokayukta are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondent No.4 to take action in accordance with law as per its service conditions."
(d) In Sri.B.Neelakant vs. Managing Director, Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag and Uttara Kannada Districts Co-op Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., Dharwad and others, [ILR 2019 KAR 4857], the Milk Union had a separate set of Rules/Bye-laws governing the disciplinary proceedings. That, as per Rule 80.0 of Service Rules, 2001, Milk Union relied upon Karnataka Civil Services Rules, only in case where there was no specific Rule in its service regulations. It was also categorically stated that the Milk Union had not adopted CCA Rules for being applied to its employees. In other words, there was a clear admission by 1st respondent - Union therein to the effect that its own set of regulations governed the disciplinary proceedings of its employees. It was also admitted that the CCA Rules was 39 not adopted by 1st respondent - Union. However, reliance was placed by respondents therein on Rule/Regulation 79 of Chapter XVI, which related to inquiry and levy of penalty on the employees of respondent - Milk Union, to contend that the Disciplinary Authority of respondent was empowered to entrust conducting of such inquiry against an employee to the Upa-lokayukta. However, the same was not accepted inasmuch as entrustment of conducting an inquiry to the Lokayukta by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules would only be under two contingencies namely:
"(i) where the employee is a government servant; or
(ii) where the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules has been adopted by the employer, where such employee is working;"
There was no dispute to the fact that petitioner therein was an employee of the respondent - Milk Union. Respondent - Milk Union therein had not adopted C.C.A. Rules which would govern the employees of Milk Union for conducting inquiry. On the other hand, respondent - Milk Union therein had its own, separate and distinct bye- laws/service regulations that would govern its employees relating to the manner in which an inquiry was to be conducted against its employees.
(e) In B.N.Nagendra Kumar vs. The Addl.
Chief Secretary to Government, (W.P.Nos.10999- 11006/2017, disposed of on 15.06.2019), a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the petitioners therein were employees of Government Tool Room and Training Centre ("GTTC"). They were governed by its own Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Certified Standing Orders and Rules and Regulations of GTTC. Rule 14-A of CCA Rules would apply to the government servants. Rule 3 of the CCA Rules states with regard to its application.40
It was further observed as under:
"11. Reading of the above sub-Rule would make it clear that CCA Rules have no application, where the employees are governed by the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In the case on hand, the petitioners are governed by the Certified Standing Orders. .........Clause 23 deals with misconduct and defines misconduct. Clause 24 prescribes punishment for misconduct. Clause 25 would prescribe procedure for imposing punishment. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules would prescribe the Appointing Authority. Council is the Appointing Authority for Executive Cadres-I, Chairman is the Appointing Authority for the posts in the Executive Cadres-II and the Managing Director is the Appointing Authority for all other posts. ................In the absence of any provision enabling the second respondent to pass resolution and entrust the enquiry to the Upa- lokayukta, the entrustment of enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
12. ...........If the Governing Council and Chairman are of the opinion that the allegation against the petitioners requires to be enquired into, it is at liberty to conduct the enquiry against the petitioners in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Certified Standing Orders, which governs the employees of the GTTC and if found guilty of the charges, impose appropriate punishment...."
(f) In Sri.Sanjeev Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka (W.P.No.205398/2019, disposed of on 24.02.2020), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:
"28. ........... Rule 14-A(2) (a) (iii) cannot be read in isolation, it has to be read along with the other clauses under Rule 14-A. Rule 14-A(1) enumerates classes of cases to which Rule 14-A would apply Sub-Rule (2) commands that record of investigation should be 41 forwarded by the Lokayukta to the Disciplinary Authority with his recommendation and Government after examining such record shall take a decision either to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or direct the appropriate authority to resort to Rule 12 which would be for imposition of a minor penalty. A further reading of the other clauses would clearly indicate the purport of the provision relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent. Clauses (d) and (e) of Rule 14-A would clearly indicate that after the inquiry is completed, the record of the case along with the findings of the inquiring officer and the recommendation of the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be, shall be sent to the Government. Clause(e) mandates that on receipt of the record under Clause (d), the Government shall take action in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11-A and in all such cases the Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8.
29. A conjoint reading of the provisions indicated hereinabove would unequivocally make it clear that the discretion is available to the Government to entrust the inquiry to the second respondent or otherwise in case the Government is of the opinion that it is a case only for imposition of minor penalty under Rule 12, where there is no necessity to hold regular departmental inquiry, it may advise the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to take action for imposition of such minor penalty, this provision would not mean that when the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that a major penalty should be imposed or in all cases where proceedings under minor penalties are not taken up, the inquiry has to be entrusted to the Lokayukta. This interpretation of the second respondent that the inquiry has to be entrusted to the Lokayukta, once the investigation is conducted by them and a report is submitted to the Government under Section 12(3) would render the power of the Government or the discretion of the Government being completely taken away and rendering the provision 42 nugatory. This is not the purport of the statute. The law with regard to discretion as discussed in the preceding paragraphs with regard to point No.1, would be applicable to this contention as well. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner."
(g) In Shri G.B.Devaraj vs. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.8374/2019 disposed of on 11.12.2020), the question for consideration was, "Whether the Corporation was well within its power to entrust the enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta in terms of the Rules?"
It was observed as follows:
"12. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules framed by the Board of the Corporation was approved to come into effect from 20.09.1996. In the light of the above extracted Resolution that adoption of specific Rules would be in operation until the promulgation of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the specific adoptions made in the said Resolution ceased to operate from 20.09.1996. The framework of the Rules insofar as it pertains to conduct, misconduct, suspension, procedure to be followed for imposition of penalties, penalties to be imposed are as follows:
Rules 91 and 92, which form a part of Chapter 8 and deals with conduct and misconduct. Rules 93 to 103 which forms a part of Chapter 9 deals with the following contingencies:
Rule 93 depicts who is the appointing authority;
Rule 94 deals with penalties that can be imposed upon the employees of the Corporation;
Rule 96 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties;43
Rule 97 deals with procedure for imposing minor penalties;
Rule 98 deals with procedure against borrowed employees;
Rule 99 deals with appeals against the order of penalties and Rule 103 deals with review of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Thus, the afore-extracted framework of the statute contains all provisions to deal with misconduct of the employees of the Corporation.
13. Rule 39 is a residuary provision that makes applicability of other Rules that are not specifically provided in the said Rules. Rule 39 of the said Rules reads as follows:
"Rule 39 APPLICATION OF OTHER RULES:
(a) The Karnataka Land Army Corporation Service Rules and Standing Orders and all other rules for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation in so far as such rules are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of these rules shall not be applicable to persons appointed under these rules.
(b) In the absence of specific provisions in these rules, the rules provided in the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules, may be involved by the Board."
xxxx
17. The power of entrustment of an enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta is dealt with under KCS(CCA) Rules which not only contains provision for such entrustment, but also deals with elaborate procedure for 44 conduct of disciplinary proceedings against Government Servant. The relevant Rules are:
Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with Nature of Penalties;
Rule 11 of the said Rules deals with procedure for imposition of major penalties;
Rule 12 deals with Procedure for imposition of minor penalties;
Rule 14-A is a special procedure that is incorporated into the Rules where the government would entrust enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta when a report is furnished by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) in exercise of powers under Section 12(4) of the said Act. ......"
Quoting Rule 14-A, it was further observed as under:
"17. ................ The afore-extracted Rule gives the power of a Disciplinary Authority to either Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta as the case would be. Therefore, it is imperative that a provision for such entrustment must exist in the relevant Rules or such Rules which specifically empower entrustment of such enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta as the case would be, must be particularly adopted. I say so, for the reason that Rule 14-A of the KCS(CCA) Rules post entrustment mandates that procedure under Rule 11 shall be followed for which the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta shall have the powers of the Disciplinary Authority. Such a provision cannot be construed to have been adopted by a general adoption of Conduct Rules and Service Rules as is seen in sub-rule (b) of Rule 39.
18. Therefore, KCS(CCA) Rules without being specifically 45 adopted cannot and would not mean that the said Rules can be applied, bringing it, within the sweep of Rule 39 of the said Rules of the Corporation, unless KCS(CCA) Rules is specifically adopted by a decision of the Board of the Corporation. In view of the preceding analysis, I hold that power to entrust the enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta is not available with the Corporation. Therefore, the entrustment of the enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta by the Managing Director of the Board will have to be held as an act without jurisdiction."
We approve the aforesaid observations of learned Brother Nagaprasanna J.
37. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the KL Act defines both "Public Servant" as well as the "Government Servant". The "competent authority" under the said Act for a public servant as defined in Section 2(12)(g) is the State Government Further, under the CCA Rules, the expression, "Government Servant" is defined and the expression "Disciplinary Authority" in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Government servant is the authority competent under the Rules to impose on him that penalty. But, the said Rules do not apply to "public servants" as defined under Section 2(12)(g) of the KL Act inasmuch as Rule 3(1)(d) excludes the applicability to them.
38. Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules deals with entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta only in respect of "Government servants" and not "public servants". In the absence of there being such a provision for entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta against public servants under the CCA Rules, the State Government cannot entrust such an inquiry to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be, under the said Rules. Further, the State Government is also not the Disciplinary Authority in respect of such public servants. Therefore, the State Government on receipt of the report from the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta must submit the same to the Disciplinary Authority under the particular C&R Rules/Regulations of 46 the entity in which the public servant is employed. The Disciplinary Authority can then entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta, if Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules have been adopted in the C&R Rules of the particular entity. Alternatively, the C&R Rules can expressly prescribe the entrustment of the inquiry to the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta. In the absence of either of the two contingencies, the State Government cannot usurp jurisdiction under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta.
Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid gamut of provisions, it would be useful for all the entities which are excluded under Rule 3 of the CCA Rules to incorporate a provision akin to Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules in their respective C&R Rules or adopt Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules expressly. That would avoid litigation regarding jurisdiction vis-à-vis entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta. The reason for saying so is because the CCA Rules are of the year 1957 whereas the KL Act is of the year 1984 and Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules was inserted on the enforcement of the KL Act vide amendment made subsequently. A provision similar to Rule 14A of the CCA Rules must be either incorporated expressly or adopted by the legislative device of incorporation or reference, as the case may be.
39. As far as the next contention regarding there being non-compliance of Section 9(3) of the KL Act is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.45764/2017 contended that under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the KL Act, where the Lokayukta or a Upa- lokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deems fit, to conduct any investigation under the KL Act, he has to forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint. That in the instant case, no such copy of the complaint was forwarded to the petitioner.
4740. In response to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Lokayukta submitted that a perusal of the report of the Lokyukta would indicate that the copy of the complaint was forwarded to the petitioner and on receipt of the reply, the report was submitted as per Section 12(1) of the KL Act. On perusal of the same, we find that in deed, a copy of the complaint was forwarded to the petitioner and he has submitted his reply to the same. Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner on this aspect of the matter.
41. The next contention is with regard to the applicability of Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSRs to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.45764/2017. The said provision states that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. It was contended that, in the instant case, events in respect of which the departmental proceeding is to be instituted took place in the year 2011-12 and hence, the same is after more than four years and therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be instituted against the petitioner.
42. We do not think that at this stage, it is necessary to answer the said contention. The said contention may however be taken into consideration and if the departmental proceedings are instituted against the petitioner, then liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise the said contention before the Disciplinary Authority/inquiring authority. It is needless to observe that if such a contention is raised by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as under:
(a) That in these cases, the State Government, 48 though a competent authority under the provisions of the KL Act, was required to submit the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(2) of the Act to KRIDL for taking further action in the matter;
(b) That the State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules;
(c) Hence, the Orders of Entrustment questioned in these writ petitions are quashed, i.e.,
(i) Government Order No.Gra.Aa.Pa:21: Ka.Gra.Mu:2018, dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure 'Q'), passed by Respondent No.1, in Writ Petition No.12300/2020;
(ii) Government Order No.Gra.Aa.Pa:21: Ka.Gra.Mu:2018, dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure 'Q') passed by Respondent No.1, in Writ Petition No.12278/2020; and
(iii) Government Order No.Gra.A.Pa:18: Ka.Gra.Mu:
2016 dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure 'B') passed by Respondent No.1, in Writ Petition No.45764/2017.
(d) The State Government is directed to submit the reports under Section 12(2) of the KL Act to the Managing Director, KRIDL, forthwith;
(e) On receipt of the aforesaid reports, the Managing Director, KRIDL/Disciplinary Authority is at liberty to appoint the Inquiry Officer for conducting the inquiry against the petitioners herein, in accordance with law;
(f) All contentions raised by both sides on merits of the allegations against the petitioners herein are kept open to be raised at an appropriate time;49
(g) All other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and which have not been answered in these petitions are permitted to be raised before the Inquiry Officer in accordance with law;
These writ petitions are allowed in part and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs".
The aforesaid decision was subsequently reiterated by the Division Bench of this court in Sri Sannamallappa's case supra.
13. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions which clearly indicate that this court has held that if a statutory organization, authority, board, etc. has its own statute, rules, regulations etc. governing disciplinary action/proceedings, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules would not be applicable to its employees particularly when Rule 14-A of CCA has not been specifically adopted by the said statutory authority. This court has also held that an employee of such an authority, board, etc. is not a Government Servant but merely a public servant and since the CCA Rules are applicable only to Government Servants, 50 Rule14-A of CCA Rules are not applicable to employees of such a statutory organization, authority, board, etc.
14. In the instant case, as stated supra, the petitioner is an employee of the Gulbarga University which is a statutory authority established and incorporated under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976; the Gulbarga University has framed a statue incorporating Rules and Regulations governing disciplinary action/proceedings against its employees including the petitioner; the said statute framed by the Gulbarga University do not specifically/expressly adopt Rule-14A of the CCA Rules to its employees; so also, being an employee of the Gulbarga University, the petitioner is mere a public servant and not a Government Servant either within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Lokayukta Act or Rule 2(d) of the CCA Rules. Under these circumstances, applying the law laid down by this case in Sri R.F. Hudedavar's case supra and Sri Sannamallappa's case supra, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the State Government-competent authority 51 entrusting the disciplinary enquiry sought to be initiated against the petitioner to the Lokayukta by invoking Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is clearly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and consequently the aforesaid impugned order and all proceedings pursuant thereto are also illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserve to the quashed.
15. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is hereby partly allowed.
ii) The impugned orders at Annexure-F dated 26.04.2017 passed by the respondent No.1-
State, Annexure-G dated 02.05.2017 passed by respondent No.2-Upalokayukta, Annexure-H dated 07.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.3-Lokayukta and all proceedings pursuant thereto in respect of the petitioner are hereby quashed.
iii) The State Government is directed to submit the report dated 14.02.2017 issued under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to 52 the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.5- Gulbarga University who is reserved liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law.
iv) All rival contentions on merits between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration, accordingly same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Swk/BL