Karnataka High Court
G S Siddalingappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.23896/2022 (S-RES)
A/W
WRIT PETITION NO.23928/2022 (S-RES)
W.P.No.23896/2022
BETWEEN:
1. G S SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O LATE S SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.227
OPPOSITE TO MARAMMA TEMPLE
GUNJUR POST, VIA VARTHUR
BANGALORE-87.
2. L N RAMACHANDRIAH
S/O LATE NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.30
28TH CROSS EJIPURA
VIVEKNAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560047.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SATISH K, ADV. FOR
SRI RAKESH B BHATT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANASOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADGP.
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P.SRINIVAS, PRL.GA. FOR R1
SRI V.S.ARBATTI, ADV. FOR R2
SRI RAMU S, ADV. FOR R3)
W.P.No.NO.23928/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAN S
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.336/41
7TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN
MARIYAPPANAPALYA
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560021.
2. C S SESHGIRI
S/O C V SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT 203/10
3
9TH MAIN, V S GARDEN
BANGALORE-560026.
3. SRIDHARA
S/O S CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.165
10TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560040.
4. R SRINIVAS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.350
KARAGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
BELLANDUR
BENGALURU-560103.
5. H N RAMESH
S/O H P NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.57
HIRANDAHALLI
VIRGO NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560049.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SATISH K, ADV.
SRI RAKESH B BHATT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANASOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
4
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADGP.
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P.SRINIVAS, PRL.GA. FOR R1
SRI V.S.ARBATTI, ADV. FOR R2
SRI RAMU S, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. NAE 29 BBS 2022 BENGALURU
DATED 19.10.2022 ISSUED BY R1 ANNEXURE-G AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
COMMON ORDER
Since the prayers sought by the petitioners in these two writ petitions are identical, both the matters are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.23896/2022 are working as Assistant Revenue Officers and petitioners in W.P.No.23928/2022 are working as Revenue Inspectors in 5 the 3rd respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short "BBMP"). The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the impugned order bearing No.NAE 29 BBS 2022 at Annexure-G dated 19.10.2022, wherein the Government accorded approval under Section 17(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C.Act"), to investigate the complaint against the petitioners and others.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for Sri.Rakesh B.Bhatt, learned counsel for petitioners; Sri.T.P.Srinivas, learned Principal Government Advocate for Respondent No.1; Sri.Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.Ramu, learned counsel for respondent No.3- BBMP in both the writ petitions. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage would urge only one ground that the impugned order according approval for investigation of complaint under Section 17(A) of 6 the PC Act is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel referring to Section 17(A) of the PC Act would submit that approval could be accorded on examination of the material by the competent authority to remove such official at the time, when the offense alleged to have been committed. Thus, he submits that in relation to the Assistant Revenue Officers and Revenue Inspectors of 3rd respondent-BBMP, Commissioner is the Disciplinary Authority and competent to remove the petitioners. In that regard, he refers to Annexure- H/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike General Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employee Rules 2020 (for short "2020 Rules"). Further learned counsel would submit that the Government has no jurisdiction to accord approval for enquiry or investigation on the complaint against the petitioners, since the Government is neither the Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
7
5. Per contra, learned Principal Government Advocate Sri.T.P.Srinivas submits that in terms of Section 17(A) of P.C. Act, the Competent Authority would be the Authority which is empowered to remove such officials from the service. Learned Principal Government Advocate would fairly submit that the 3rd respondent-the Commissioner, BBMP is the Competent Authority in relation to the petitioners and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh Arabatti for respondent No.2.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are employees of 3rd respondent/BBMP working as Assistant Revenue Officers and Revenue Inspectors. In relation to the petitioners, Commissioner is the Appointing Authority as is clear from 2020 Rules. Rule 4 of 2020 Rules defines Appointing Authority. In respect of Group-B, C and D employees, the Appointing Authority is the Commissioner or an Officer empowered by him.
7. Section 17 of P.C. Act, 1988 reads as follows: 8
"17.Persons authorized to investigate:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank -
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant.
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorized y the State Government in this behalf by general or 9 special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant;
Provided further that an offence referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police." The above provision makes it clear that no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry or investigate into the alleged offenses against a public servant under Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act, without the prior approval of the Competent Authority to remove such official from service.
8. In the case of petitioners, 3rd respondent-Commissioner, BBMP would be Competent Authority to remove them from service. Therefore, it was for the 3rd respondent- Commissioner to accord approval if a case is made out for enquiry or investigation. The impugned order at Annexure-G is passed by the Government at the request of the then Anti 10 Corruption Bureau ("ACB" for short) under its letter dated 30.03.2022. The Government is neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority in relation to the petitioners and Government would not possess the power to remove the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the following order:
(a) The writ petitions are allowed.
(b) The impugned order bearing NAE 29 BBS 2022 dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-G) in both the writ petitions is quashed.
(c) Liberty is reserved to the 3rd respondent-
Commissioner, BBMP who is the Competent Authority to accord approval or otherwise, if the request is made by the Investigating Authority.
SD/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms