Karnataka High Court
Dr. R Keshavamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2025
-1-
WP No.23630 of 2025
AND WP No.21867 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO.23630 OF 2025 (GM-KLA)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.21867 OF 2025 (GM-KLA)
IN W.P. NO.23630 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
DR. SREENIVAS JAYARAM
S/O. LATE M. JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN
UROLOGY NEPHRO-UROLOGY DEPARTMENT
INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY
VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS
BENGALURU-02 AND
RESIDING AT NO.19
9TH CROSS, ANEPALYA
BENGALURU-30.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
Location: High Court
of Karnataka AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-01
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-01
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
-2-
WP No.23630 of 2025
AND WP No.21867 of 2025
3. DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY
VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS
BENGALURU-02.
4. MEMBER SECRETARY
GOVERNING COUNCIL AND
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
INSTITUTION OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY
BENGALURU-02.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDEV HEGDE, ALONG WITH SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K.,
A.G.As., FOR R-1,
SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPECIAL COUNSEL, FOR R-2, &
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3 AND R-4)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE 12(3) REPORT BEARING NO.COMPT/LOK/BCD1368/2021/ARE-8, BENGALURU, DATED 3-3-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, IRRATIONAL AND UNTENABLE AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. IN W.P. NO.21867 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
DR. R. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O. LATE BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY AND EX-DIRECTOR IN-CHARGE OF INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 002.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI VEERABHADRAIAH M., ADVOCATE) -3- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE MEMBER OF GOVERNING COUNCIL AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUDEV HEGDE, ALONG WITH SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., A.G.As., FOR R-1, SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, & SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPECIAL COUNSEL, FOR R-3) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9-7-2025 VIDE NO. INU/ADMN/ESTA/27/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MEMBER OF GOVERNING COUNCIL OF INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO- UROLOGY AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 1-9-2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.) Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner, Dr. Sreenivas Jayaram, seeking to quash the report dated 3-3-2025 submitted by respondent No.2- Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act').
2. Writ Petition No.21867 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner, Dr. R. Keshavamurthy, seeking to quash the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 issued by respondent- No.2-Governing Council and to quash the report dated 3-3-2025 submitted by respondent No.3-Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act.
3. One Dr. Sujatha Siddappa filed a complaint dated 5-7-2021 with the Lokayukta against the petitioner(s) and other teaching faculties alleging that they are into private practice during their duty hours. On investigation, the -5- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 Lokayukta submitted the report dated 3-3-2025. Thus, the disciplinary authority has issued show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 to the petitioner(s). The petitioner(s) have sought quashing of both the investigation report/recommendation dated 3-3-2025 as well as the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 issued by the Governing Council.
4. Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025, contended that the Lokayukta does not have any jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations made by the complainant as there is a specific bar under Section 8 of the Act. Further, if the complainant had any grievance against the petitioner and others, she would have availed the alternative remedy by filing a complaint to the Disciplinary Authority straightaway without approaching the Lokayukta. The Disciplinary Authority could have taken cognizance of her complaint or grievance independently. It is for this reason, the legislature has imposed a specific bar on the Lokayukta to investigate into the action taken -6- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 in respect of, and in relation to the service conditions, including discipline, as these are subject matters which fall within the domain of the employer, more so, when the allegations made by the complainant does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(2) of the Act, inasmuch as, she has not raised any grievance within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Act. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to quash the report of the Lokayukta.
5. Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21867 of 2025, vehemently contended that the Lokayukta report is with regard to the disciplinary proceedings, for which, Section 8 of the Act, creates a bar to conduct investigation and to submit the report. Hence, the report of the Lokayukta is illegal and contrary to the statute as well as without jurisdiction. Based on such report, any proceedings initiated by the Governing Council or any other authority, are not sustainable in law. The allegations mentioned in the report of the Lokayukta as well as the show-cause notice are not having any basis, or supported -7- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 with any material particulars. Ever since from the date of appointment of the petitioner as a Doctor and later, as a Professor and HOD, he is discharging his duties sincerely with professional commitment and absolutely, there is no complaint either from the patients, or in the administration side against the petitioner from any corner, and there is no black mark. However, the Lokayukta submitted the report without any basis and documentary evidence. In fact, it is the stand of the petitioner that, no patients or their caretakers filed any complaint against the petitioner or any other Doctors regarding deficiency of his services. The complainant has not submitted any documents before the Lokayukta to substantiate such irregularities in the written complaint, or filed any such complaint before the Director of the Institute prior to filing of the complaint before the Lokayukta. The complainant only on assumption and presumption, as a co-employee, on vengeance and with malafide intention, filed a false complaint without any documentary proof. The Lokayukta tampered its own documents, such as, affidavit dated -8- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 5-7-2021 and it was not notarised when the complaint was filed. But in the report, it is mentioned that the complaint was filed on 7-7-2021 and affidavit was notarised. The date in the affidavit is tampered intentionally and deliberately just to favour the complainant. Hence, the learned senior counsel prayed to quash the report of the Lokayukta and the show-cause notice issued by the Governing Council.
6. Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned special counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta, and Sri Sudev Hegde along with Smt. Prathibha K., learned Additional Government Advocates for the respondent-State, would submit that, the petitions are pre-matured one. The petitioner(s) are governed by the Institute of Nephro- Urology Pay and Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 2004, and hence, they can raise all such contentions in the enquiry. Under Rule 10 of the INU Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, are adapted. The investigating report dated 3-3-2025 shows that, the same -9- WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025 was submitted by holding proper investigation and on application of mind. As per Section 8(2)(d) of the Act, the complaint involving allegations can be filed before the Lokayukta. After receipt of the recommendations of the Lokayukta, the Governing Council of INU has applied its mind to the allegations made against the petitioner(s) and issued show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025, which is in accordance with law. The Court, at this stage, cannot consider the merits of the case. It is open for the petitioner(s) to take up all available defences regarding merits of the allegations during the course of enquiry. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
7. We have perused the petitions paper, impugned order/recommendation report and show-cause notice issued by the competent authority and rival submissions of the parties.
8. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025, Dr. Sreenivas Jayaram, is a Professor of Urology in the Department of Nephro-Urology in INU. On 22-3-2021,
- 10 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 the petitioner and other teaching faculties submitted a complaint to respondent No.1-State against Dr. Sujatha Siddappa, Professor of Pathology, alleging that on 18-3-2021, she had misbehaved with the Director of INU using abusive language against him. On 1-6-2021, the Member, Governing Council/Principal Secretary to the Government, suspended Dr. Sujatha Siddappa, on the complaint of the Director, INU. On 5-7-2021, Dr. Sujatha Siddappa filed a complaint to respondent No.2-Lokayukta against the petitioner and other teaching faculties alleging that they were into private practice during their duty hours. Hence, the Lokayukta issued notice to the petitioner and called explanation from him. Thus, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the Lokayukta and wherein, he mentioned the previous incidents relating to the misconduct committed by Dr. Sujatha Siddappa and her eventual suspension from the services. In this regard, Dr. Sujatha Siddappa filed a defamation case in Original Suit No.5835 of 2021 against the petitioner and ten others
- 11 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 and by the order dated 1-4-2023, the trial Court dismissed the said original suit.
9. In the meanwhile, the Lokayukta did not accept the reply of the petitioner, but ordered for investigation at the hands of the Superintendent of Police of the Karnataka Lokayukta, who claimed to have held preliminary investigation and filed the report stating that the allegations made against the petitioner are found to be correct. On 3-3-2025, the Lokayukta sent the report under Section 12(3) of the Act recommending respondent No.3- Director, INU, to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and other teaching faculties on the basis of the findings recorded by the Investigating Officer.
10. Similarly, on 25-8-2000, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21867 of 2025, Dr. R. Keshavamurthy, was appointed as a Lecturer in Urology in Bengaluru Medical College under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, through the Karnataka Public Service Commission. On 29-11-2008,
- 12 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 respondent No.1-State absorbed the petitioner from medical college to the Autonomous Institute of Nephro- Urology, Bengaluru (for short, 'INU'). On 27-8-2015 and 10-5-2019, respondent No.1 appointed the petitioner as Director In-charge of INU, considering his seniority in view of retirement of Dr. N.H. Nagaraj. In view of the changed circumstances, the permanent Director was appointed by the Governing Council of the Institute and for the same, respondent No.1 issued Notification dated 29-1-2025. However, the said notification is a subject matter in Writ Petition No.3728 of 2025 (S-RES) before this Court. In view of the same, the petitioner continued as Professor and HOD of Urology in INU. In view of the Government Notification dated 16-5-2025, the petitioner's service has been extended for further five years.
11. In the meanwhile, one Dr. Sujatha Siddappa, Professor, Department of Pathology in INU, the co- employee of the Institution, lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta against the petitioner(s) and other co-employee alleging that some of the Doctors, who are working in INU,
- 13 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 are attending the patients during the working hours in private hospitals and thus, she requested the Lokayukta to conduct investigation. Further, a specific allegation has been made against the petitioner regarding bribe and issuing tenders in violation of Rules and Regulations, and disproportion of assets.
12. The Lokayukta acting on such complaint, conducted investigation and issued notice to the petitioner and others. On acceptance of notice, the petitioner suitably replied it and denied all the allegations and requested to drop the proceedings. The Lokayukta, after investigation, dropped the charges of the irregularities committed in calling tender and disproportionate assets alleged against the petitioner. However, the Lokayukta, in its report, alleged that the petitioner being the Director In- charge of INU failed to maintain strict discipline among the sub-ordinate Doctors and to provide effective healthcare services to the patients, who are coming with their health problems. Based on such allegations, the report dated 3-3-2025, was submitted to the Government.
- 14 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025
13. On 9-7-2025, the Member, Governing Council of INU, issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner(s) alleging that during working hours, the petitioner(s) and others were away from the hospital, i.e. between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and they were found to have been working in the private hospitals. It appears that, the petitioner(s) have challenged the very report of the Lokayukta and competency of the Governing Council of INU.
14. The Lokayukta Act is enacted for the purpose of improving the standards of Public Administration by looking into the complaints against administrative action including cases of corruption, favouritism and official indiscipline in Administrative Machinery.
15. In these petitions, the petitioner(s) have disputed the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, which reads as under:
- 15 -WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025
"12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.-
(1) xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx (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." (emphasis supplied)
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025 contended that since the complainant has filed a suit in Original Suit No.5835 of 2021, the complaint before the Lokayukta would not be maintainable.
17. Learned senior counsel contended that the report submitted by the Lokayukta is contrary to Section 8 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner has no other alternative and efficacious remedy, except approaching this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
- 16 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 He further contended that the whole action of the Lokayukta is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. Kingstone Computers Pvt. Ltd reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524. Therefore, the action of the Lokayukta is illegal, arbitrarily, perverse and without jurisdiction and same is liable to be set aside.
18. Hence, it would be apt to take note of Section 8 of the Act, which reads as under:
"8. Matters not subject to investigation.-
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action,-
(a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule; or SECOND SCHEDULE [see section 8(i)(a)]
(a) Xxx
(b) Xxx
(c) Xxx
- 17 -WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025
(d) Action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service."
19. In sum and substance, the complaint against the petitioner(s) is that they have failed to perform their duties as public servants.
20. The 'allegation' is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act, which reads as follows:
2(2) "Allegation" in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant-
(a) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;
- 18 -
WP No.23630 of 2025 AND WP No.21867 of 2025
(b) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives;
(c) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;
OR
(d) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs.
21. The above definition of allegation is very wide to include the abuse of his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, discharge functions as public servant by personal interest or corrupt motives, guilty of corruption, favoritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as public servant or unbecoming of a public servant by conduct.
- 19 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 The complaint or allegation is for dereliction of duty as public servants by the petitioner(s). It is not personal grievance of the complainant and the complainant has not sought any redressal of her personal grievance. Moreover, Section 8(1) speaks of grievance in respect of any action. Section 8 would not speak of allegations.
22. 'Grievance' is defined under Section 2(8) of the Act, which reads as follows:
2(8) "Grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration.
23. The above definition of 'grievance' would suggest that it is one's individual grievance sustained or suffered due to mal-administration. If the complaint is with regard to one's grievance, if he has any other alternate remedy, the complainant cannot maintain complaint before the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta. In the case on hand, it is not the grievance of the complainant; it is the allegation against the petitioner(s) by the complainant. If a person
- 20 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 has any grievance, which is not redressed, by inaction of the officials or authority, if such aggrieved person has any statutory remedy against such grievance, by way of appeal, review or revision, such aggrieved person cannot approach the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, and the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta shall not investigate such complaints. Hence, Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act would not come to the aid of the petitioner(s).
24. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that the recommendation of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act is passed without application of mind.
25. On going through the report dated 3-3-2025 under Section 12(3) of the Act and the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025, we are of the view that the authorities while passing the orders and issuing show-cause notice have applied their mind. The Lokayukta while submitting its report under Section 12(3) of the Act has discussed about the complaint against Dr. Sujatha Siddappa and also
- 21 -
WP No.23630 of 2025AND WP No.21867 of 2025 the complaint against the petitioner(s) filed by Dr. Sujatha Siddappa. The report also discloses the notice issued and the reply submitted by the petitioner(s). Further, the Governing Council while issuing the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 has noted that it has examined in detail the report submitted by the Lokayukta and has come to prima-facie conclusion that the petitioner(s) have committed dereliction of duty.
26. Looking from any angle, we are of the view that the petitioner(s) have not made out any ground to interfere with the orders under challenge. There is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK