Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/O Late Linganna Vanikyal vs The Karnataka Lokayukta on 6 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105
WP No. 112572 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 112572 OF 2014 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR S/O. LATE LINGANNA VANIKYAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. SLAO QUARTERS, DC OFFICE, BIDAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THEERATHAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YARAGOPPA, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
SAROJA (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R1;
HANGARAKI
SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADV. FOR R2)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
BENCH
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE
WRIT QUASHING THE COMPLAINT AND PROCEEDINGS IN CASE
NUMBER COMPT/UPLOK/BGM/1851/2014 ON THE FILE OF
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, VIDE ANNEXURE - F & G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105
WP No. 112572 of 2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the Special Counsel for respondent-Lokayukta.
2. The petitioner in this petition prayed this Court to issue appropriate writ quashing the complaint and proceedings in Case No.COMPT/UPLOK/BGM/1851/2014 on the file of the Karnataka Lokayukta vide Annexures-F and G and pass such other relief.
3. The petitioner in the petition has contended that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.2 preferred a RTS appeal bearing No.RTS/AP/116/12-14 challenging the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Kerur, Taluk Badami. In the routine course of his job, he entertained the appeal and disposed of the appeal as per law as a quasi judicial officer and dismissed the appeal. Respondent No.2, being aggrieved by the said order passed by this petitioner, preferred a Revision Petition before the Deputy -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 Commissioner, Bagalkote in RTS/R/1/2014-15 and the said Revision Petition is pending for hearing. The respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the quasi judicial order passed by the petitioner, has submitted a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote making allegations against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner colluding with his opponent party, dismissed the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice. It is contended that respondent No.2 has also submitted similar complaint making similar allegations against this petitioner to the Lokayukta, Bengaluru. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the Lokayukta has registered the complaint at case No.COMPT/UPLOK/BGM/1851/2014 and issued a show cause notice to this petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation and hence the same is challenged before this Court. The main ground urged in the petition also that if the complaint is entertained against the quasi judicial officers, the quasi judicial orders -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 passed by the officers will be demoralized and brought under the threat to act in accordance with frivolous complaints and the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is outcome of the order passed by this petitioner. He has preferred an appeal and hence the filing of complaint is not warranted. It is also contended that as the respondent No.2 was unsuccessful in the RTS appeal, preferred an appeal before this petitioner and against that order of the petitioner, he has preferred Revision Petition and when he had challenged the order in judicial side, he ought not to have filed the complaint and complaint ought not to have been entertained by the Lokayukta. It is also contended that the very calling of explanation by the Lokayukta against this petitioner is nothing but initiating of proceedings once again since the complaint is also filed before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has warned the petitioner by passing an order of censure and the proceeding before the Lokayukta is nothing but harassing the petitioner and hence the same has to be quashed.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014
4. The counsel appearing for the respondent- Lokayukta would vehemently contend that the violation of principles of natural justice is alleged in the complaint at Annexure-F and the counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner preponed the case and passed an order and no opportunity was given. He would submit that what made the petitioner to prepone the matter and to pass the order which is not an act of discharging of duty of a quasi judicial officer and he passed the order hand in glove with the opponent and no opportunity was given to the complainant. The counsel brought to the notice of this Court that when the date was fixed for disposal of the case on 24.03.2014, in the original order sheet, the petitioner got it corrected as 24.02.2014 and there was no reference of posting the matter on 24.02.2014 and on 03.03.2014, the order was passed and there is no explanation to that effect. He would submit that though the case was posted on 09.05.2014, the petitioner has pronounced the order on 03.03.2014 itself. Hence, serious allegations are made against the petitioner and the same touches the -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 questioning of integrity of the quasi judicial officer and also passing an order without giving an opportunity and indulged in preponing the case and passing an order without hearing.
5. In reply arguments, the counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the Annexure-G i.e., preliminary inquiry-Tippani which discloses that documents are summoned and specific note is also made to get the report and when such note is prepared, ought not to have been summoned and verified the same and there was no need of conducting an inquiry and seeking for the relief of quashing of Annexures-F and G.
6. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta and having taken note of complaint, it is rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta that the respondent No.2 has made allegations of not giving any opportunity which is not meeting the principles of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 natural justice and specific allegations are made that even in spite of matter was listed on different dates, the same was preponed and passed an order particularly on 03.03.2014 and when serious allegations are made against the petitioner in the complaint, Annexure-F particularly in page No.2 about preponement of cases from 24.03.2014 to 24.02.2014 and passing of the order on 03.03.2014. The specific allegation is also made that though case was posted on 09.05.2014, an order has been passed on 03.03.2014. On perusal of Annexure-G clearly discloses that having considered the complaint, preliminary investigation is conducted and prepared the note to get the records and called for explanation. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the concerned authority, i.e., Lokayukta in calling for explanation and proceeding to enquire into the matter in view of serious allegations made in Annexure-F and specific allegation is made with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner and no proper explanation with regard to what made him to prepone the case and pass an order. When such serious allegations are -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 made and also when he being the Assistant Commissioner dealing with the matter, particularly revenue appeals, he ought to have exercised due diligence in considering the material and passing the order. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash Annexures-F and G. The complaint is having considered, a preliminary investigation is conducted and the report is obtained and note has been prepared. By sending the document to the proper authority, a decision was taken and hence, no ground is made out and there is no merit in the petition.
7. The petitioner's counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote, wherein an observation is made against the petitioner with regard to the allegation and censure order was passed not to repeat the same in future and warned him and the same cannot be a ground to stop the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent- Lokayukta in view of the serious allegations made in the complaint annexed. Hence, the very contention of the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 petitioner that in view of making an order of censure, question of initiating other proceedings doesn't arise, cannot be accepted and the matter has to be enquired into by the Lokayukta.
8. The petitioner's counsel has relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.25078-80/2016 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken note of Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 matters not subject to investigation wherein taking note that since the alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Upalokayukta ought not to have proceeded to investigate into the matter since there is a clear bar for the Upalokayukta to enquiry/investigate under Section 8(1) of the Lokayukta Act in such matters and hence, allowed the petitions.
9. In the case on hand, having considered the principles laid down in the judgment (supra), no doubt even there is an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014 1964, the petitioner has passed a quasi judicial order and specific allegation is made that when the date was fixed to take up the matter on a particular date, the petitioner herein voluntarily preponed the case and passed the order in the absence of the respondent-complainant. Hence, the allegation of misconduct is alleged in the complaint at Annexure-F and hence, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case.
10. The Court has to take note of the specific allegations made against the petitioner with regard to his misconduct is concerned in the absence of any explanation that what made him to prepone the case and pass the order on suo motu which tends to the allegation of favouring the opponent and when such an allegation is made, the matter requires investigation and enquiry has initiated by the Lokayukta is sustainable. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11105 WP No. 112572 of 2014
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed.
The contentions which have been raised by the petitioner are kept open to raise the same before the Inquiry Officer of Lokayukta.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42