Karnataka High Court
Shri Anand Karlakunti vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
WP No. 102685 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 102685 OF 2022 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANAND KARLAKUNTI,
S/O. HULAGAPPA KARLAKUNTI,
AGE:45 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,
O/O.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL),
HARAPANAHALLI, DUB-DIVISION,
BALLARY DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY R. SARATHY AND
SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally
signed by
SHIVAKUMAR
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH
HIREMATH Date:
2023.12.07
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
11:57:26
+0530 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
DEVELOPMENT LTD (KRIDL),
GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJESHEKAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
WP No. 102685 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED
ENTRUSTMENT ORDER BEARING NO.GRA.AA.PAM 4 KA.GRA.MU
2017 DATED 20TH FEBRUARY 2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.KRIDL/ADALITHA/UPA-LOK-1/DE/438/2017/2021-22/2670
DATED 09.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is questioning the entrustment order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and also the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2022. In terms of the entrustment order at Annexure 'C', the Government has entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta to investigate the complaint against the petitioner. Subsequent to entrustment, the Lokayukta conducted the enquiry and submitted a report to the Government in terms of Annexure - M. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Lokayukta, the 2nd respondent has taken action vide Annexure - E. In terms of the said order petitioner's four annual increments have -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121 WP No. 102685 of 2022 been withheld and the petitioner's promotion is also withheld for four years. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner being an employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd, the entrustment by the Government to the Lokayukta itself is one without jurisdiction. The learned counsel would refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.47719/2018 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry against the employee of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the entrustment by the Government to the Lokayukta to hold enquiry against the petitioner is one without jurisdiction as the petitioner is admittedly the employee of Karnataka Rural -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121 WP No. 102685 of 2022 Infrastructure Development Ltd. Consequently, the order of entrustment is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
6. As a consequence, this Court has to hold that the report of the Lokayukta holding the petitioner guilty is also one without jurisdiction and same is quashed. Further, as a consequence of this the order passed by the 2nd respondent withholding the increments as well as the promotion of the petitioner based on the report of the Lokayukta is also quashed.
7. However, it is relevant to note that in the aforementioned judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has reserved liberty to the State Government to submit a report under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the Managing Director of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. Once the report is submitted, the competent authority is at liberty to take appropriate action based on the report, as observed in the aforementioned judgment.
8 Needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits in view of the order at Annexure - C being set-aside.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121 WP No. 102685 of 2022
9. It is further made clear that nothing is expressed in this order on the merits of the complaint lodged against the petitioner.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43