Karnataka High Court
Dr T Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29533 OF 2014 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. T. VENKATESH
S/O LATE M. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. No.4, 1ST FLOOR
DOCTORS QUARTERS
POBBATHI HOSPITAL COMPOUND
SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, V.V. PURAM
BENGALURU-560 004
2. DR. B. DHARMENDRA
S/O B.S. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT. # 39/3-1, 3RD CROSS
3RD MAIN, MALLESHPALYA
Digitally signed
by NEW THIPPASANDRA POST
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA BENGALURU-560 075
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. DR. M. JAYAPAKASH
S/O LATE C. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
No.17, BEHIND B.D.A.
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
4. DR. B. BASAVENDRA
S/O LATE T. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT No.2227, 1ST 'A' CROSS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
4TH MAIN, HAL III STAGE
BENGALURU-560 017
5. DR. ETHIRAJ
S/O LATE M.C. IYAVOO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. A-3, No.310, YAMUNA BLOCK
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 047
6. DR. V.H. JAYARAM GOWDA
S/O LATE HOMBALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT No.15, 2ND MAIN
NEAR R.M.V. SCHOOL
SANJAY NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 094
7. DR. KALPANA
W/O DR. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT. 5, S-3, GOKULAM APARTMENT
8TH CROSS, A BLOCK
AECS LAYOUT
KUNDANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 037
8. DR. N. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O B. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT. No.106, 5TH 'C' MAIN
4TH CROSS, R.P.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
9. DR. A. SIDDAPPAJI
S/O ANKU GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT.525, B2 YAMUNA BLOCK
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGES
HOUSING COMPLEX
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
KORAMANAGALA
BENGALURU-560 047
10. DR. MANORANJAN HEGDE
S/O LATE K. OBAYYA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT No.118, 1ST CROSS
BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 040
11. DR. H.G. SURESH
S/O P. GURUMURTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT. DOCTOR'S QUARTERS
COTTONPET MATERNITY HOSPITAL
ADINARAYANA GUDI BEEDI
COTTONPET MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 053
12. DR. T.S. THYAGARAJ
S/O LATE SHAMA SUNDARAM
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT No.512/E, 1ST MAIN ROAD
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
13. DR. R. SURENDRA
S/O LATE DR. M. RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT No.264/3, 6TH CROSS
K.N. EXTENSION, YASHWANTHAPURA
BENGALURU-560 022
14. DR. JAGADISH CHANDRA
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT. No.9, 7TH MAIN, G.M. PALYA
BENGALURU-560 075
15. DR. RAMESH
S/O ADIVAPPA
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT. # 72, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 079
16. DR. S.B. NAGARAJ
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT No.421, 2ND CROSS
16TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034
17. DR. T. DEVAKI UMESH
W/O UMESH M. BHOVI
AGED BOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. D-62, 3RD MAIN ROAD
4TH 'A' CROSS, HIG DOLLARS COLONY
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094
18. DR. MALA RAMACHANDRA
W/O LATE DWARAKANATH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT. A-103, MANTHRI ELITE APARTMENTS
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076
19. DR. VIJAY KUMAR BIRADAR
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. DOOR No.615, YAMUNA B-2
N.G.V. KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 047
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHEIF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS (PCAS)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP)
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION OFFICES
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
5. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (HEALTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
6. THE REGISTRAR
LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
7. THE ADDTIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
LOKAYUKTA
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANS 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, OR ORDER, OR DIRECTION,
QUASHING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER No. NA.HA.E 79 MNG
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB
WP No. 29533 of 2014
2014 BENGALURU DATED 30.05.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-'J' AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;
(a) "Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, or Order, or Direction quashing the Government Order No.NA.HA.E 79 MNG 2014 Bangalore dated 30.05.2014 as per Annexure-J.
(b) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) To quash the report of the respondent No.6 dated 04.01.2014 bearing No.COMPT.LOK.BCD.57/2009 submitted by the Lokayukta to the State Government produced at Annexure-P by issuing writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice and equity."
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB WP No. 29533 of 2014
2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, the learned panel counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 7.
3. The question raised in this writ petition is whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioners on the basis of a report dated 04.01.2014 under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('Act of 1984' for short), which was made without putting the petitioners on notice and hearing them is bad in law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from a very reading of Section 12(3) report dated 04.01.2014 itself, it is clear that the writ petitioners had not been put on notice or heard and that the recommendation by respondent No.6, to the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners is legally unsustainable.
5. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment dated 08.06.2010 in batch of writ petitions, wherein this Court -8- NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB WP No. 29533 of 2014 had clearly directed that disciplinary action can be taken as against the petitioners and other such employees only on the basis of the clear findings against them with regard to malfeasance or misfeasance and in the light of the clear provisions of Section 9(3) as well as Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, the action of the respondents in recommending for conduct of disciplinary action against the petitioners was bad in law.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the complaint was specifically filed against the Commissioner, BBMP as well as the Deputy Commissioner, BBMP. The said persons had been put on notice and had been heard. They had submitted that on the basis of Annexure-C and Annexure-D reports, the complicity of the petitioners who were the Health Officers at the relevant time, had been found. It was on the basis of such submissions and in view of Annexure-B report which was prepared after hearing the petitioners that departmental action against the petitioners had been recommended.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB WP No. 29533 of 2014
7. We have considered the contentions placed on record and the materials on record as well.
8. It appears that Annexure-D report had been submitted as early as on 22.11.2008. It is the contention of respondent No.6 that Annexure-D report had been submitted by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) to the Commissioner, BBMP after putting the petitioners on notice. However, it is not disputed before us that before 12(3) report dated 04.01.2014 submitted to the Government requiring departmental action to be taken against the petitioners, the petitioners had not been put on notice of heard.
9. Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 specifically provides that, if after investigation into any action involving an allegation has been made, Lokayukta or Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation are 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB WP No. 29533 of 2014
10. However, it is specifically provided under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1984 that where the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act, such Authority shall forward a copy of the complaint and shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or on the opinion recorded under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the Act 1984.
11. It is clear in the instant case that though a report had been submitted by the BMTF as is evidenced by Annexure- D, this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2010 had considered the matter and has held that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the employees of the BBMP only if clear findings are entered against them with regard to malfeasance and misfeasance. If that were to be so, respondent No.6 could not have relied on the report dated 22.11.2008 to contend that the employees of the BBMP are liable to be proceeded against respondent No.6 ought to have put the public servant i.e., the petitioners herein on notice and considered their objections as well before proceeding to conduct any investigation against them. In the absence of compliance with the provisions of Section 9(3), the report dated 04.01.2014 under Section 12(3)
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49816-DB WP No. 29533 of 2014 of the Act of 1984, recommending disciplinary action against them would be unsustainable.
12. In the above view of the matter, without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the disciplinary action as against the petitioners shall not be proceeded.
However, respondent No.6 is free to put the petitioners on notice and to take appropriate action in accordance with law after hearing them as well, if so advised.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24