Karnataka High Court
Shri Shankarling S/O. Nagappa Gogi vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 30.01.2026
Pronounced on : 04.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.104498 OF 2025 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANKARLING
S/O NAGAPPA GOGI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC. PROJECT DIRECTOR
BAGALKOTE NIRMITHI KENDRA
R/O. NO.109/2, WARD NO. 11, PLOT NO. 55,
POSTAL COLONY, 2ND CROSS,
VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE - 587 102
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BUILDING CENTRE (KARNIK)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING
COOPERATION LIMITED
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE NIRMITHA KENDRA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN AND
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOTE - 587 103,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE.
4. SHRI SHIVAKUMAR NANJAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC.:PROJECT DIRECTOR
R/O NAVNAGAR
BAGALKOTE - 587 102.
IMPLEASED AS R-4 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025
PASSED ON IA NO.02/2025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-3;
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI JAGADISH PATIL AND
SRI VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-
24/376/1 DATED 29.06.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 29-06-2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, which now shoots
at the post of the Project Director at Nirmithi Kendra, Bagalkote.
2. Heard Sri A.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Smt. Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3, Sri Vijayakumar V.B.,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Jagadish
Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner was initially serving as Yojana
Vyavastapakru (Project Manager) at Nirmithi Kendra, Karwar. The
Governing Body of Nirmithi Kendra of Bagalkote District resolved to
appoint the petitioner as its Project Director. Consequently, an
4
appointment order was issued on 16-08-2012 appointing the
petitioner as Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra. After about 10
years of functioning of the petitioner, owing to the allegation of
amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income,
the then Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short) registers a crime
in Crime No.10 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections
13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The
source report so drawn was disproportionate assets to the tune of
186%. The registration of crime was challenged before this Court in
Writ Petition No.105147 of 2023. This Court rejects the Writ Petition
by holding that the Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra was a public
servant and the case was marred with corruption.
3.2. Pursuant to the rejection of the writ petition, it appears
that the Government issues a circular restraining all concerned
authorities from making appointments to the posts of Project
Director in Nirmithi Kendras without prior approval of the
Government. One S.N. Hiremath was proposed to be appointed as
in-charge Director in place of the petitioner and the petitioner was
taken out of the said post. On 29-06-2024, the in-charge Project
5
Director assumes charge of the post. Being aggrieved by the
appointment of Sri S.N. Hiremath as Project Director, the petitioner
prefers Writ Petition No.103730 of 2024. This Court grants an
interim order of stay on 03-07-2024. The petitioner then withdraws
the writ petition so filed challenging the appointment of in-charge
Project Director. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as
Deputy Director, Karnataka State Building Centre (KARNIK) on
contract basis for a period of one year. He reports for duty on 30-
10-2024. Thereafter he remains unauthorizedly absent. He once
again knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
3.3. An interim order is passed on 14-07-2025, based upon
that the petitioner is said to have reported for duty as Project
Director at Nirmithi Kendra. After reporting as Project Director on
the strength of the interim order, it appears that the petitioner was
issued a show cause notice seeking explanation for his unauthorized
absence at KARNIK office. The matter is heard at that stage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri A.S.Patil would vehemently contend that the petitioner was
6
displaced without authority of law. He was entitled to continue as
Project Director and in-charge arrangement is made contrary to the
principles of natural justice and the 3rd respondent who passed the
impugned order of dislodging the petitioner was not the Competent
Authority in terms of law. Therefore, the order that displaces the
petitioner is illegal and unsustainable, as the order is passed by the
ex-officio Chairman and the Deputy Commissioner, while the order
has to be passed by the 1st respondent/Government.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the
petitioner though did not secure favourable orders at the hands of
this Court, somehow or the other continued in the post of Project
Director of Nirmithi Kendra. The petitioner has completely
suppressed the fact that he was appointed as Deputy Director,
KARNIK and had reported for duty. After having reported for duties
at the said office he is remaining absent there and filed a writ
petition suppressing all the facts, secured an interim order and on
the strength of the interim order he is continuing as Project Director
in Bagalkote Nirmithi Kendra. On paper, he continues to work at
7
KARNIK as his appointment at KARNIK is not terminated and what
is issued is only a show cause notice seeking explanation for his
unauthorized absence at KARNIK.
6. The learned counsel Sri Vijayakumar V.B. and Sri Jagadish
Patil, who appear for the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent
would toe the lies of the learned High Court Government Pleader.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record, but would
require complete reiteration. Nirmithi Kendra, a registered society
under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act was established in
the year 1989. The Deputy Commissioner of a particular District is
the ex-officio Chairman of every Nirmithi Kendra and Members of
those Nirmithi Kendras are chosen from every walk of technical
field. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Yojana
Vyavatapakru (Project Manager). Owing to the experience of the
8
petitioner, it appears that on 04-05-2012 a resolution comes to be
passed by the Governing Body of the Nirmithi Kendra, Bagalkote
under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner to appoint the
petitioner as its Project Director. He was thus appointed as a
Project Director on 16-08-2012. The order was communicated to
the Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Cooperation
Limited/respondent No.2. The petitioner continued to work for 10
years as the Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra. On the allegation
that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to the
known source of income, the then ACB registers a crime in Crime
No.10 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. Two questions were raised as to whether a crime could be
registered by the ACB against the petitioner, as he was not a public
servant within the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and whether the offence would require further investigation at the
hands of the ACB? This comes to be challenged by the petitioner
before this Court in Writ Petition No.105147 of 2023. The issue that
was projected before this Court was that Nirmithi Kendra was not a
9
State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner
is not a public servant within the definition of public servant, as is
obtaining under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court, in
terms of its order dated 22-08-2023, passed the following order:
".... .... ....
6. The service of the petitioner at the Nirmithi Kendra
would commence from 2003. After about 20 years of his
service, a source report is drawn against the petitioner on the
allegation that he has amassed wealth grossly disproportionate
to the known source of income to the tune of 186%. This
results in a crime being registered by the then Police of the ACB
on 16.08.2022 for the afore quoted offences. The registration
of the crime by the ACB drives the petitioner to this Court.
This Court entertains the petition and grants
interim order of stay which reads as follows:
ORDER
"Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that, he is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra, which is not a State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and he is not a Public Servant as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for any act of his, the provisions under the said enactment is not attracted and that he has been erroneously charged under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
For the aforementioned reasons, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.10/2022 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, till the next date of hearing.
Call on 23.08.2022."
107. The interim order of stay was granted on the submission being prima facie accepted that the employees of the Nirmithi Kendra were not public servants and would not come within the ambit of the PC Act.
8. During the pendency of the said writ petition and subsistence of the interim order, a Division Bench abolishes the office of the ACB that leads the petitioner withdrawing the petition and filing the subject petition. Though, an interim order of stay was operating on an earlier occasion that was on the score that the petitioner was not a public servant and offences punishable under PC Act would not become applicable to the employees of the Nirmithi Kendra.
9. I decline to accept the said submission on the score that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G.Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka has held that a Projector Director working in a Nirmithi Kendra, and Nirmithi Kendra receiving funds from the hands of the State Government would come within the definition of 'public servant' as defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in the said judgment in Criminal Petition No.2801/2021 has held as follows:
1. Corruption hurts everyone. Corruption erodes the trust of a common man in the system.
Corruption effects the society, the industry, the economy, the mankind and the nation at large. Corruption has been in existence even during ancient times and it will continue to exist and our vision has to be to curb the same and make our nation corruption free.
2. Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.2/2021 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Chickkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C.Act'), has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.2/2021 which is now pending before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chickkaballapura.
113. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are, petitioner is working as a Project Manager in Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District, which is a society registered in the year 2008 under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Governing Body of the Nirmithi Kendra comprises of the Deputy Commissioner of the District as the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat as the Executive Chairman, Deputy Secretary (Development) of the Zilla Panchayat as the Member Secretary, the Project Manager of Kolar District Nirmithi Kendra, the Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division, the District Welfare Officer, Chikkaballapur, the DDPI, Chikkaballapura, the Project Manager, Chickkaballapura Nirmithi Kendra, amongst others as members. The administration of the Kendra is governed by the Governing Body. The principal object of the Kendra is to develop skills in construction and to undertake the civil construction works assigned by the Government.
4. On receipt of a source report that the petitioner who is working as a Project Manager in District Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, was possessing disproportionate assets as against the known sources of his income, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Chikkaballapura, had forwarded the said report to the Superintendent of Police, ACB Central Zone, Bengaluru, based on which, FIR in Crime No.2/2021 was registered against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the same.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authority has no power to register a case against the petitioner under the provisions of the P.C.Act, for the simple reason that the petitioner is not a public servant. He submits that the petitioner is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra which is a society and the said society has not been receiving any funds either from the State Government or the Central Government. He submits that in identical circumstances, this Court in the case of 12 GOPINATH ALIAS GOPINATHSA VS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BIJAPUR & ANOTHER -
2014(4) KCCR 3668, has held that the employee of the Nirmithi Kendra cannot be termed as a public servant, and therefore, had quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein under the P.C.Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police. He submits that the said judgment was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the special leave petition was dismissed. He also submits that relying upon the judgment in Gopinath's case (supra), a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.169/2014 had quashed the entire proceedings in respect of the petitioner therein who was also an employee of the Nirmithi Kendra. He refers to Annexure-D which is a communication issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing Department, to the President of Bengaluru Nirmithi Kendra, and submits that in the said communication, the request for deputation of employees of the Nirmithi Kendra to other departments of the State was declined on the ground that the employees of the Nirmithi Kendra are not Government servants. He submits that the appointment of the employees of the Kendra are done by the Governing Body of the Kendra, and therefore, they are the employees of the society and they cannot be termed as public servants. He has also referred to Annexure-M which is an affidavit by the Secretary to the Housing Department, filed before this Court in a writ petition pertaining to the applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Nirmithi Kendra and submits that in the affidavit, it is categorically stated in paragraph 7 that the Nirmithi Kendra which do not receive funds/finance from the State Government or the Central Government cannot be considered as public authorities under the RTI Act. He submits that the question whether the employee of Nirmithi Kendra is a public servant or not has been already considered in Gopinath's case by this Court and the said 13 question is no more res integra and he refers to paragraphs 4 to 11 of the said judgment which reads as under:
"4. It is the contention of the petitioner that even an IAS Officer deputed to a Co- operative Society drawing his salary from Society cannot be a public servant and the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, does not apply. The Petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner falls totally outside the definition of public servant and jurisdiction of Lokayukta Police and there is no scope and also looking into the body of the six bye-laws framed, though it is a private sector, it has to receive funds from the State Government or Central Government, no such fund has been received by the society for which the petitioner is the Project Manager. Only on the ground that the petitioner is a Project Manager, a case is registered against him.
5. The letter at Annexure.C1 from the Housing Department of the State Government addressed to the President of the Nirmithi Kendra clearly mentions that as per the Rule 20 - appointment by deputation, the Nirmithi Kendra is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, it is not a Government Department and also petitioner cannot be called as Government servant. Accordingly, it is contended that a false case has been initiated against the petitioner by the Lokayukta by filing a complaint before the Lokayukta Police, Bijapur, alleging violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this petition.
6. Various Annexures produced by the petitioner do depict that except the Society is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, petitioner cannot be said to be a public servant or Government servant as such, according to the petitioner, filing of the complaint and initiation of action against petitioner is without jurisdiction and also in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 as well as Prevention of Corruption Act and the power exercised by the respondent by filing a complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law 14 and also defamatory.
7. The learned counsel for the Lokayukta referring to Section 2(c) (xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which read.--
"2. (c)(xii) Any person who is an officer-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority".
Submitted that petitioner is an office bearer or Nirmithi Kendra which is receiving or having received any financial assistance from the State Government or Central Government, as such any violation forms the basis to initiate action against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh, AIR 2009 SC 372 wherein the Apex Court was dealing with similar case of Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, that was established by the Government and the appeal filed by the State was allowed and matter was remitted for reconsideration.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the Society has received the funds from the State Government or Central Government nor appointments are made by the Government and is having no character of any authority or local authority under the State. The filing of the complaint and initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is nonest in the eye of the law and is nothing but abuse of process of laws.
9. The petitioner is said to be the Project Manager of an institution which undertakes contracts taking no assistance of the State Government or Central Government. Accordingly, it is submitted the institution has no character of the Government or Governmental body. It is also submitted, there is a provision made to receive the amount from both the State Government or Central 15 Government however, no such amount is received so far nor any financial assistance is extended to the Project Manager i.e., Nirmithi Kendra.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others, AIR 2000 SC 937 wherein referring to Section 2 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and also Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as regards a 'Public Servant' the Apex court has held that the Chairman of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, though, a public servant under Societies Act but not so, under Section 21 of Indian Penal Code and he cannot be prosecuted for offences under the India Penal Code and he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 161 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M.A. Parthasarathy Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others, ILR 2009 Kar.1940: (2009 (3) KCCR SN 139) wherein it held that as per Scheme of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The condition precedent for submitting the said report is, only when the allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly against public servants so that follow up action may be taken against them by the Government. As per Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act, the investigation to be conducted by the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta is in respect of a complaint against a public servant only. The words 'public servant' has been defined under Section 2(12) of the Lokayukta Act.
11. The question in this case is with respect to the petitioner who is a Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra which is neither enunciated by the State Government or Central Government, except a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Section 2(12) of Lokayukta Act, so as to initiate action under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the above cited decision of the High Court, it is specifically held that Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the 16 person who does not come within the definition of a public servant has defined under the Act. This makes it clear that except a provision that has been made in the bye-laws of Nirmithi Kendra to receive the funds etc., by the State Government or Central Government, in the absence of any such fund being received from the State Government or Central Government and without there being any misuse of power or misuse of the amount so available with the society, there was no scope for the Investigation Officer to file a complaint to the Lokayukta and the said complaint even if it filed, is non est."
6. He submits that inspite of there being a judgment of this Court to the effect that the employees of the Nirmithi Kendra are not public servants and though the said judgment is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-authority has now registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the provisions of the P.C.Act, which is totally without jurisdiction, and accordingly prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. He submits that the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and P.C.Act are different. He also submits that the Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received grants/funds from the State Government as well as from the Central Government and in Gopinath's case (supra), there is a finding to the effect that the Nirmithi Kendra therein was not receiving any funds. He submits that since the Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received funds from the State and the Central Government, it cannot be said that it is not a public authority. He submits that petitioner is discharging a public duty, and therefore, he comes within the ambit of the P.C.Act. He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT VS MANUSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH - 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412, and submits that even persons who are discharging public duties are answerable to the State and the public, and are covered under the ambit of the P.C.Act. He submits that having regard to the nature of the work undertaken by the petitioner, it can be clearly said that the petitioner is discharging public duty and he is answerable to the State as well as the public. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income, and therefore, he is 17 answerable to the State. He submits that admittedly, the Nirmithi Kendra undertakes construction works entrusted to them by the Government and the work of the petitioner who is a Project Manager is to look after the said construction activities. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the State against the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case (supra) in simplicitor, and therefore, the same cannot have any binding precedent. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS - (1986)4 SCC 146, UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS M.V.MOHANAN NAIR - (2020)5 SCC 421, and STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS VS MD. ILLIYAS - (2006)1 SCC 275, in support of this contention of his. He submits that the petitioner is not only a public servant, but he also discharges public duty, and therefore, he is clearly covered by the provisions of the P.C.Act, and having regard to the allegation against him based on the source report, the ACB have rightly registered a case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act and the investigation in the case is under progress. He further submits that when there is a prima facie case made out for cognizable offences in the FIR, interference with the investigation should not be made in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material on record.
9. The question that would arise for consideration in this petition would be, "whether the petitioner who is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra which is a body registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, can be prosecuted for the offences under the P.C.Act?"
10. The undisputed facts of this case are, petitioner is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, which is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The said Kendra has been undertaking civil construction works of the State Government assigned to it. Petitioner who is working as Project Manager of the Kendra has been looking after the said construction works in various sites.
1811. The material on record would go to show that the Deputy Commissioner of the District is the Chairman of the Governing Body of the Kendra, while the Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Secretary of the Zilla Panchayat are the Executive Chairman and the Member Secretary, respectively. There are many other senior Government officials who are the members of the Governing Body. The audit report of the Kendra which is available on record would go to show that the Kendra has been receiving funds from the State as well as from the Central Government. The word 'public servant' as defined under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, reads as under:
"(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; and
(g) a person in the service or 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 19 time to time, specify;
(iii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company 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."
12. In the P.C.Act, the words 'public duty' and 'public servant' are defined in Sections 2(b) & 2(c), respectively as under:
(b) "public duty" means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.
Explanation: In this clause "State" includes a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the government or a government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(c) "public servant" means,-
(i) any person in the service or pay of the
government or remunerated by the
government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;
(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;
20(iii) any person in the service or pay of a Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;
(v) any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;
(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by court of justice or by a competent public authority;
(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;
(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co- operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;
21(xi) any person who is a Vice- Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;
(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority.
Explanation 1: Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
Explanation 2: Wherever the words "public servant"
occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation."
13. From the reading of the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the P.C.Act, it is very clear that a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, and any person or employee of any institution if it has been receiving or if it has received any financial assistance from the State or Central Government, shall be considered as a public servant. The explanation to Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act would further go to show that such a person may be appointed by the Government or not. Therefore, a public servant need not be a Government/civil servant, but a Government/civil servant is always a public servant.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah's case (supra) has held that an employee of a co-operative society which is controlled or aided by the Government is covered within the comprehensive definition of the word 'public servant' as defined under the P.C.Act.
2215. The judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case was rendered having regard to the fact that the Nirmithi Kendra of which the petitioner therein was employed had not received any funds from the State or the Central Government or any other public authority. There is a specific finding to the said effect in the said judgment. However, in the case on hand, the records would reveal that the Nirmithi Kendra in which the petitioner is employed has been receiving funds from the Central as well as the State Government. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case will not be applicable to the facts of this case.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER VS M/S. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS & ANOTHER - AIR 2002 SC 834, has observed that judgments can be relied upon as precedents, if only the same is applicable to the fact situation of the case. In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statues "
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited case (supra), has held that:
"The dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary implication the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have 23 been rejected by Supreme Court. The effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave should be granted. It cannot be assumed that it had necessarily decided by implication all the questions in relation to the merits of the award, which was under challenge before Supreme Court in the special leave petition."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V.Mohanan Nair's case (supra), has held that dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not constitute a law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the impugned judgment/order against which special leave petition is dismissed in limine does not stand affirmed by the Supreme Court nor does it merge with the order of the special leave petition. Such a judgment/order would stand on its own and cannot be cited as a precedent of the Supreme Court.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited case and in M.V.Mohanan Nair's case (supra), it cannot be said that the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
20. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the Nirmithi Kendra in which the petitioner is employed has been receiving funds from the State and the Central Government and taking into consideration the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the P.C.Act, it cannot be but said that the petitioner is a public servant. Even if a person is not a public servant, but by virtue of his office if he is discharging public duty, then he is covered under the ambit of the P.C.Act.
21. Corruption in our country is a growing 24 menace and P.C.Act being a welfare legislation is required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and spirit of the statute. In furtherance of the fight against corruption a broad interpretation to the provisions of this statute is required to be given and the arms of this Act is required to be extended to the maximum. The offences under the P.C.Act can be invoked not only against a public servant but also against a person, who by virtue of his office has been discharging 'public duty'. In Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at paragraphs 26, 27, 44 to 46, 49 & 50 as under:
"26. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court observed:
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
(emphasis supplied)
27. We shall accordingly have due regard to the aforesaid principles while interpreting the provisions herein. The point of contention relates to whether a deemed University would be included within the ambit of the PC Act, particularly under Section 2(c)(xi) of the same, where the word used is "University". The learned senior counsel for the appellant-State submits that the word "University" as used in Section 2(c)(xi) of the Act, must be purposively 25 interpreted. An institution which is "deemed to be a University" under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [UGC Act] plays the same role in society as a "University". These institutions have the common public duty of granting degrees, which are ultimately qualifications recognized in society. As such, an institution which is "deemed to be University", such as the institution in the present case, is included within the ambit of the term "University" used under the Act.
44.As discussed earlier, the object of the PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants. The purpose under the PC Act was to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals who perform public duties. Keeping the same in mind, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-State, it cannot be stated that a "Deemed University" and the officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the officials therein.
45.Therefore, for all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court was incorrect in holding that a "Deemed University" is excluded from the ambit of the term "University" under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.
46.Having come to the above conclusion, in the present case, the pivotal question is whether the appellant-trustee in the Board of 'Deemed to be University' is a 'public servant' covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Recently, this Court in the case of CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788, dealt with the question as to whether Chairman, Directors and officers of a private bank before its amalgamation with a public sector bank, can be classified as public servants for prosecution under the PC Act. While dealing with the aforesaid proposition of law, the Court analysed the purpose and scope of the PC Act and made the following observations:
26"15. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the PC Bill it is clear that the Act was intended to make the anti-corruption law more effective by widening its coverage. It is also clear that the Bill was introduced to widen the scope of the definition of "public servant". Before the PC Act, 1988, it was the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161 to 165-A in Chapter IX IPC which were governing the field of law relating to prevention of corruption. Parliament repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also omitted Sections 161 to 165-A IPC as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the PC Act, 1988. Since a new definition of "public servant" is given under the PC Act, 1988, it is not necessary here to reproduce the definition of "public servant"
given in Section 21 IPC.
...
17. The above definition shows that under sub- clause (viii) contained in Section 2(c) of the PC Act, 1988, a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, is a public servant. Now, for the purposes of the present case this Court is required to examine as to whether the Chairman/Managing Director or Executive Director of a private bank operating under licence issued by RBI under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, held/holds an office and performed/performs public duty so as to attract the definition of "public servant" quoted above."
(emphasis supplied)
49.In order to appreciate the amplitude of the word "public servant", the relevance of the term "public duty" cannot be disregarded. "Public duty" is defined under Section 2(b) of the PC Act, which is reproduced below:
2(b) 'public duty' means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.
50.Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the categories stated under Section 2 is a public servant 27 whether or not appointed by the government. The second explanation further expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any legal infirmities or technicalities."
22. In the supplemental reasons assigned by one of the Hon'ble Judges who was party to the aforesaid judgment at paragraphs-10 & 12, it is observed as follows:
"10. It cannot be lost sight of that the Act, 1988, as its predecessor that is the repealed Ac of 1947 on the same subject, was brought into force with avowed purpose of effective prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act of 1988 which repeals and replaces the Act of 1947 contains a definition of 'public servant' with vide pectrum in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act,1988, so as to purify public administration. The objects and reasons contained in the Bill leading to passing of the Act can be taken assistance of, which gives the background in which the legislation was enacted. When the legislature has introduced such a comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of corruption in the society imparting public duty, it would be apposite not to limit the contents of the definition clause by construction which would be against the spirit of the statute.
11. xxx xxx
12. In construing the definition of 'public servant' in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the court is required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature. The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term 'public servant' in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Act and clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the word 'any' which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the form. In this context, the legislature has taken not of 'any' person or member of "any" governing body by whatever designation called of "any" university to be termed as 'public servant' for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah's case (supra), taking into consideration the rampant corruption that has been affecting the public life, with an object of making India corruption free, has observed that to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the corruption in society, the definition clause of the words 'public 28 servant' and 'public duty' should not be limited affecting the very spirit of the statute.
24. Petitioner is an employee of the Nirmithi Kendra which is undertaking civil construction work for the Government and has been receiving funds from the State and Central Government. Since the Kendra has been receiving funds from the Government, it can be termed that the said Kendra is under the control of the State Government and having regard to the nature of work discharged by the petitioner in a society which is under the control of the Government, it can be clearly said that the petitioner has been discharging public duty. The Kendra has been receiving funds from the Government and the works entrusted by the Government is performed by the Kendra, and therefore, the Kendra as well as its employees are answerable to the State as well as to the public. Petitioner is working as a Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra and the nature of work carried on by him will fall within the definition of the word 'public duty' as defined under the P.C.Act. It is now well settled that even if a individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging "public duty" by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, even if the Nirmithi Kendra is not receiving or has not recovered any fund from the Central or State Government, but if the employees of the Kendra by virtue of his office is discharging public duty, then he is answerable to the State, Community and the public, and can be prosecuted for the offences under the P.C.Act. Accordingly, I answer the question framed for consideration in the affirmative.
25. Corruption is considered the single biggest problem faced by our country. It undermines democracy and rule of law and violates human rights. The corrupt take advantage of the loopholes in the legal system and that is why it has become a low risk but high profit business. Corruption to do the wrong thing is one thing, but when corruption reaches the stage of getting right things done which a citizen is legally entitled for, then the very moral fabric of the society is destroyed.
26. Good laws alone would be not sufficient to make our country corruption free, but there has to be effective 29 enforcement of the same and efforts should be towards making the concerned accountable. Demanding bribe is a crime so is offering a bribe.
27. The ACB has registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act, for the reason that the petitioner is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Since the Nirmithi Kendra wherein the petitioner is employed is said to have received funds from Central and State Government, it cannot be but said petitioner is a public servant. Petitioner by virtue of his office is discharging public duty, and therefore, is answerable to the State as well as the public and even if it can be said that he is not a public servant, he cannot be left out of the hook. The criminal petition, therefore, does not merit consideration and the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for by him. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
Criminal petition is dismissed."
10. The co-ordinate Bench was considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 412 where the Apex Court has enlarged the scope of applicability of the PC Act to Co-operative Societies and to Institutions which receives aid from the State either direct or indirect. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel that Nirmithi Kendra is not the one that could be brought within the ambit of PC Act qua its employees is sans substance.
11. In the light of the issue being answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnegowda (supra), I decline to interfere with the proceedings that are instituted against the petitioner by the respondent-Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
The petition lacking merit stands rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail of any remedy that is available in law."
(Emphasis supplied) 30 On the same day of rejection of the petition on 22-08-2023, it appears that the State Government notifies to all Nirmithi Kendras that no post of Project Director should be filled without prior permission of the State Government.
10. The Government by its order dated 29-10-2024 resolves to shift the petitioner from the post of Project Director, Nirmithi Kendra to the Karnataka State Building Centre (KARNIK). The official memorandum reads as follows:
"ಅ ಅ ಕೃತ ಾಪನ ಷಯ : ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ೋ , ಂ ನ ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ"ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ (") &ೇಂದ ರವರನು, &ಾ "- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ಉಪ !ೇ"ಶಕರ ಹು!ೆ3ಯ ೇಮ&ಾ) ಆ!ೇಶ ೕಡು)7ರುವ ಬ ೆ9.
ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 1 ಕ>ೇ?ಯ e-Office ಏಕ ಕಡತ ಸಂAೆB: KARNIK/ADM/7/2024- DIREC 2 ಸ&ಾ"ರದ ಅ ೕಕ &ಾಯ"ದ "ಗಳD, ವಸ) ಇ:ಾAೆ ರವರ ಪತ ಸಂAೆB: ವ ಇ 308 FೆG ಎ ಎಂ 2024 ಾಂಕ: 29.10.2024.
***** ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆ:-
JೕಲKಂಡ ಷಯ&ೆK ಸಂಬಂ LದಂMೆ &ಾ "- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ; Aಾ Nರುವ ಉಪ !ೇ"ಶಕರ ಹು!ೆ3 ೆ ೕ. ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ೋ , ರವರನು, ೇಮಕ Oಾಡಲು ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 1ರ ಈ ಕQೆಯ e-office ಕಡತದ ; ಸ&ಾ"ರದ ಪ Rಾನ &ಾಯ"ದ "ಗಳD, ವಸ) ಇ:ಾAೆ Fಾಗೂ ಪದ (ತ7 ಅಧBTರು, &ಾ "- ರವ? ೆ ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆಯ ; ಸ ;ಸ:ಾ ರುತ7!ೆ.31
&ಾ "-: 345 :DqÀ½vÀ :01:2024:-6989 ಾಂಕ: 29.10.2024 ಆ!ೇಶ JೕಲKಂಡ ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆಯನು, ಸ&ಾ"ರವU ಪ? ೕ L, ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 2ರ ಪತ ದ ; ೕ, ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ೋ , ರವರನು, &ಾ "- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ಉಪ !ೇ"ಶಕರ ಹು!ೆ3 ೆ Fೊರಗು)7 ೆ ಆRಾರದ Jೕ:ೆ ಒಂದು ವಷ"ದ ಅವ ೆ ಅಥXಾ ಮುಂ ನ ಆ!ೇಶದವYೆ ೆ ೇಮಕ OಾZ ಆ!ೇಶ FೊರZಸ:ಾ ರುತ7!ೆ.
ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕೂಡ:ೇ ಕತ"ವB&ೆK ವರ OಾZ&ೊಳ[ಲು Fಾಗೂ ಈ ಬ ೆ9 LOA ನು, ಒಂದು Xಾರ!ೊಳ ೆ ಈ ಸಂ/ೆ0 ೆ ಒದ ಸಲು )\L!ೆ.
ಸ /-
_ಾ||&ೆ.ಎ£ï. ಾYಾಯಣ ೌಡ !ೇ"ಶಕರು"
The Bagalkote Nirmithi Kendra relieves the petitioner by the following order:
"ಸಂAೆB:cಅ$ಾ/ಆdಆdL/Lಆd-02/2023-24 376 ಾಂಕ: 29-06-2024 1 ಅ ಕೃತ ಾಪನ ಷಯ : ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ f ೕgೆ-h _ೈYೆಕhd (") &ೇಂದ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ ಇವರನು, /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\ಸುವ ಬ ೆ9.
ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ : ಾಂಕ:24/06/2024 ರಂದು ೕ ಆd.j )Oಾkಪlರ, OಾನB ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು Fಾಗೂ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ c:ಾ; ಉಸು7Xಾ? ಸmವರ ಅಧBTMೆಯ ; ಜರು ದ &ೆ.Z.ಇ ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ಾ ಸnೆಯ ; ೕZರುವ ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳD.
-*-*-*-*-*-
ೕ ಆd.j )Oಾkಪlರ, OಾನB ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು Fಾಗೂ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ c:ಾ; ಉಸು7Xಾ? ಸmವರ ಅಧBTMೆಯ ; ಾಂಕ:24/06/2024 ರಂದು ಜರು ದ &ೆ.Z.p ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ಾ ಸnೆಯ ; (") &ೇಂದ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ ವ)Nಂದ &ೈ ೊಂಡ &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳ ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ೆ OಾZರುವ 32 ಸಂದಭ"ದ ; &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳನು, ಅನುrಾhನ ೊ\ಸುವ shನ ; ?ೕtತ ಪ ಗ) /ಾ ಸ!ೆ ಇರುವUದು ಮತು7 &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳ ; ಗುಣಮಟh &ಾಯು3&ೊಳ[ ರುವUದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದು3, ಸ&ಾ"ರದ &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳನು, ?ೕtತ ಮಟhದ ; ಮತು7 ಗುಣಮಟhದ ; ಅನುrಾhನ ೊ\ಸಲು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ (") &ೇಂದ &ೆK ಒಬv ದT ಮತು7 ಪ Oಾwಕ ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ"ಶಕ ಅವಶBಕMೆ ಇರುವUದ?ಂದ Fಾ &ಾಯ" ವ" ಸು)7ರುವ ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ , ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ"ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ (") &ೇಂxರ ಇವರನು, ತTಣ ಂದ /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\ಸಲು OಾನB ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು !ೇ"ಶನ ೕZರುವಂMೆ ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ , ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ"ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ (") &ೇಂದ ಇವರನು, ತTಣ ಂದ /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\L ಆ!ೇ L!ೆ.
ಅಧBTರು ಸ /-
$ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ (") &ೇಂದ Fಾಗೂ c:ಾ; &ಾ?ಗಳD $ಾಗಲ&ೋ'ೆ c:ೆ;."
Two things become clear. The petitioner was moved out from the post of Project Director, Nirmithi Kendra and had been relieved from the said post on 29-06-2024 which the petitioner receives on 04-07-2024.
11. The petitioner challenges the said order dated 29-06-2024 before this Court in Writ Petition No.103730 of 2024.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as follows:
"This writ petition is filed under Article 226 r/w 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 29-06-2024 bearing No cಅ$ಾ / ಆd ಆd L-02 / 2023-24 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.3, in the interest of justice and equity. Declare that the respondent No.3 have no power to appoint through an outsource system to 33 the Nirmithi Kendra and restrain the Deputy Commissioner not to place any appointment order without the consent of the Governing Body and pass any appropriate order or directions, as deemed fit of this Court and restrain the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 29-06-2024 bearing No cಅ$ಾ/ಆdಆdL- 02/2023-24 (Annexure-F) and pass any appropriate orders or directions in the circumstances of the case, including the order as to the costs and etc."
(Emphasis added) The writ petition comes to be withdrawn on a memo being filed, by the following order:
"Learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo seeking withdrawal of writ petition.
2. In view of memo, writ petition is dismissed as not pressed."
On relieving, the 4th respondent/S.N.Hiremath, is sought to be appointed to the post of Project Director, Nirmithi Kendra. The petitioner approaches this Court without impleading the said person. Relying on particular interim order granted in a different circumstance, the petitioner secures an interim order at the hands of this Court on 14-07-2025 in the present writ petition. The order reads as follows:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.34
Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner is appointed in the year 2012 which was approved on 16.08.2012. However, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been relieved on Adhoc basis with Adhoc arrangement. Therefore, the present petition.
Learned counsel relies on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10370/2024 wherein in identical circumstances, interim order is granted by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner deserves an interim order in this case. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
There shall be stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 passed by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-J till next date of hearing."
The interim order is continued from time to time. This Bench, on 30-10-2025, had passed the following order:
"The petitioner, on the strength of the interim order, is said to have joined service.
The Deputy Commissioner, who has passed a second order of the same date, i.e., on 29.06.2024, shall file an affidavit of explanation as to why a second order had to be passed on the same day and serve it on the petitioner on 04.07.2024 notwithstanding the earlier order on 29.06.2024 having been served upon him and that has been raising a challenge to the said order in Writ Petition 103730/2024. The affidavit of the signatory to the said order dated 29.06.2024 shall be placed before this Court on the next date.
List the matter on 19.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m. 35 If the affidavit could not be filed, the Deputy Commissioner who has passed the order shall be present before the Court.
Interim order subsisting, if any, is extended till the next date of hearing."
The affidavit to that effect is also filed. In all the pleadings of the petitioner what comes to be missing is two orders viz., that the petitioner was relieved from the post of Project Director, Bagalkote, Nirmithi Kendra and was posted as Deputy Director, KARNIK.
12. The petitioner, suppressing all these facts, secures the interim order at the hands of this Court, as if the petitioner has continued to work in Bagalkot Nirmithi Kendra as on the date of filing of the petition projecting two orders are passed one ante-
dated or otherwise. What is challenged in the subject petition is an order dated 29-06-2024. The prayer and interim prayer that is sought by the petitioner in the present petition are as follows:
1. "Writ of Certiorari or any other order or directions quashing the impugned order bearing No fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-24/376/1 dated 29-06-
2024 passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J.
2. Any other writ or order or direction which deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of this case.
36INTERIM PRAYER During the pendency of the above petition, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay, staying the operation, execution, implementation and further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order bearing No. fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-24/376/1 dated 29-06-2024 passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J and further to issue accused-interim directions directing the Respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to continue as the present Project Director of the Nirmithi Kendra Bagalkote."
(Emphasis added) This is exactly what the petitioner sought in the earlier writ petition which comes to be withdrawn. If the petitioner has challenged the same and withdrawn it, it is ununderstandable as to how he can all over again approach this Court and seek the same prayer. The petitioner has undoubtedly abused the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit must meet its dismissal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order if any subsisting shall stand dissolved.
3714. In the light of dismissal of the petition, the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioner on 15-07-2025 be taken to its logical conclusion without brooking any further delay.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ