Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
WP No. 20942 of 2021
C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20942 OF 2021 (GM-KLA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 171 OF 2022 (GM-KLA)
IN WP No. 20942/2021
BETWEEN:
1. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O LATE C. HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA 574001.
2. P. SIDDAPPA,
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed by WORKING AS ASSISTANT
MALATESH K C REVENUE OFFICER,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE 570001.
3. SRI V. ADARSH KUMAR,
S/O LATE VIJAY RATHNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
-2-
WP No. 20942 of 2021
C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE 570001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LEELA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
(MAHANAGARA PALIKE -2),
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 01.
4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES 4
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T. P. SRINIVASA, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
GRANT AN EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM STAY ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDING IN THE ENQUIRY HELD BEFORE THE 4TH
-3-
WP No. 20942 of 2021
C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
RESPONDENT IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED
02.11.2018 BEARING NO.UPLOK-2/DE/447/2018/ARE-4 I.E.,
ANENXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WP No. 171/2022
BETWEEN
KALLESHAIAH H. C.,
S/O CHIKKAVEERAPPA,
RETIRED REVENUE OFFICER,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE-570001,
CURRENTLY R/AT NEAR VINAYAKA CIRCLE,
OPP. TO OLD RAILWAY STATION,
MALLASANDRA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LEELA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
(MAHANAGARA PALIKE-2)
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
-4-
WP No. 20942 of 2021
C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE-570001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T. P. SRINIVASA, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
******
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
GRANT AN EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM STAY ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDING IN THE ENQUIRY HELD BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED
02.11.2018 BEARING NO.UPLOK-2/DE/447/2018/ARE-4 I.E.,
ANENXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Assistant Executive Engineer, City Municipal Council, Mandya, Assistant Revenue Officer, Mysuru City Corporation, Second Division Assistant, Mysuru City Corporation, and Retired Revenue Officer, Mysuru City Corporation, have filed these two writ petitions for a writ of certiorari praying to quash the report dated 24.07.2018 issued by the Upa Lokayuktha and the -5- WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 entrustment Order issued by the 2nd respondent and the Articles of Charge dated 02.11.2018 issued by the 4th respondent, insofar as petitioners are concerned.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.06.2014, in pursuance to a suo moto complaint, office of the petitioners viz., Citizen Service Centre Zone 9 of Gayatripuram, Mysuru City Corporation was raided and upon body search, certain cash was recovered from the petitioners and charge sheet was filed in Special C.C.No.317/2016 against the petitioners. On 25.06.2018, an observation note was served upon the petitioners for initiation of departmental enquiry, for which the petitioners replied contending that there was no cash declaration register maintained in the office and the amount recovered is not illegal money and it belongs to them. On 24.07.2018, a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act was prepared without referring to the reply given to the observation note and the defense raised on the observation note and recommended to take action and report under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act. On 17.09.2018, without observing any of the grounds raised and -6- WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 without giving any finding, matter was referred under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, for holding domestic enquiry against petitioners. Accordingly, on 02.11.2018, articles of charge was framed against the petitioners based on the same materials and same statements.
3. It is further contended that the petitioners contested the matter. The accused No.2 i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.171/2022 was discharged during the course of enquiry and petitioners in W.P.No.20942/2021 i.e., Accused Nos.1, 3, and 6, were acquitted by the Judgment dated 27.01.20202 made in Spl. Case No.317/2016 on the file of the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru, mainly holding that there was no cash declaration register maintained in the Mysuru City Corporation and in fact the notification for maintaining cash declaration was made subsequent to the raid conducted by the Lokayuktha. Therefore, the petitioners filed these writ petitions for the reliefs sought for.
4. The respondents have not filed any objections. -7- WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Smt. Leela, learned counsel appearing for Sri. V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned recommendation, entrustment order and articles of charge are wholly arbitrary and contrary to the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court. Thereby the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. She would further contend that the Competent Authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under Sub-Section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayuktha or the Upa-Lokayuktha the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. The bare reading of the said provision is very clear that there is total non application of mind and on this ground alone, she sought to set aside the impugned order. She further contended that the issue involved in the writ petitions is no more res-integra and same is covered by the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.03.2017 made in WP No.43079/2015. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustainable and same is liable to be -8- WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 dismissed. She further contended that in identical circumstances, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 10.11.2021 made in W.P. No.79/2021 has allowed the writ petitions and set aside the very same Report, Entrustment Order and the Articles of Charge as per Annexure-D, E and F respectively only insofar as petitioner therein. Therefore, the said order is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the impugned orders challenged in the present petitions are one and the same. Since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confined the order only to the petitioner therein, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, Sri. Venaktesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri. T.P. Srinivasa, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the concerned Authorities.
8. In view of rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise for consideration in the present petitions is: -9- WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
"Whether the petitioners have made out a case to quash the proceedings in view of the dictum of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.11.2021 made in WP No.79/2021 in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
10. Admittedly, the charge framed against the present petitioners and others by the Karnataka Lokayuktha reads as under:
"2. That, you-1) Sri H.L. Ravikumar, The then Assistant Commissioner Presently Assistant Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Chikmagalur, 2) Sri H.C. Kalleshaiah, Assistant Revenue Officer, Zonal Office No.9, Mysore City Corporation Mysore (now retired), 3) Sri V. Adarshkumar, Second Division Assistant, Presently Davanagere City Corporation, 4) Sri Shiva, Junior Engineer, Presently Town Panchayath, Pandavapura, Mandya District, 5) Sri Govindegowda, Revenue Officer, (presently Sericulture Inspector Technical Service Center), Malavalli, Mandya District, 6) Sri P. Siddappa,
- 10 -WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
Revenue Officer, Zonal Office No.9, Mysore City Corporation and 7) Sri Prahlad, Revenue Officer, Presently Sericulture Inspector, Technical Service Centre, Turuvekere, Tumkur District when the I.O. raided Zonal Office No.9, Mysore City Corporation on 30/06/2014 at 4 p.m. with search warrant issued by the competent court, you-DGO Nos. 1 to 7 working in the said office were present in the office along with one Siddaraju s/o Ningaraju and you-DGO No.1 possessed cash of Rs.3,770/-, you- DGO No.2 possessed cash of Rs.6,400/-, you-DGO No.3 possessed cash of Rs.25,145/- you-DGO NO.4 possessed cash of Rs.12,730/-, you-DGO No.5 possessed cash of Rs.3,890/- you-DGO No.6 possessed cash of Rs.11,805/- and you-DGO No.7 possessed cash of Rs. 3,680/- and you-DGO NOs.1 to 7 had not declared the cash possessed by you- DGOs in the cash declaration register and you- DGOs have not produced satisfactory evidence for processing the cash as stated above during office hour and you-DGO Nos.1 to 7 being the public servant had kept the applications submitted by members of the public pending without being attended to only for the purpose of receiving the bribe and the amounts found with you-DGO Nos.1 to 7 as stated above had been received by illegal means secured through the agent Sri Siddaraju s/o
- 11 -WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
Ningaraju for doing official favour. Thereby you- DGOs being the Government Servants failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty, the act which is unbecoming of Government Servants and thereby committed misconduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966."
11. Admittedly, the Delinquent Government Official (for short 'the DGO') DGO NO.7-Shiva had filed the writ petition No.79/2021 challenging the very same Report dated 24.07.2018, Entrustment Order dated 17.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dated 02.11.2018 before this Court and the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 10.11.2021 allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders therein insofar as petitioner is concerned. The said order passed by the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court has reached finality as the Lokayuktha has not preferred any appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. It is also not in dispute that all the petitioners including Shiva have been discharged, tried in a Special Case No.317/2016 vide order dated 27.01.2020. The learned
- 12 -
WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 Special Judge considering the entire material on records held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 being Assistant Commissioner, accused No.3 being Second Division Assistant, accused Nos.5 and 7 being Revenue Officers and accused No.6 being the First Division Assistant all being public servants were habitually demanding illegal gratification from the public to facilitate payment of such bribe, accused Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 used to keep the work and files pending, awaiting for payment of bribe and also used to collect money over and above official fees from the public and thereby accused Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 were in possession of sum of Rs.3,770/-, Rs.25,145/-, Rs.3,890/-, Rs.11,805/- and Rs.3,680/- respectively and they have not committed the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and ultimately, all the points raised in the Special Case were answered against the prosecution and acquitted all the accused therein including the present petitioners under the provisions of Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), 8 and 9 of the
- 13 -
WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said order of acquittal has reached finality.
13. During the course of arguments when this Court asked question to learned counsel to show that if there are any other materials on record, which may suggest that the 'Cash Declaration Register', Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti learned counsel for the Upa-Lokayuktha fairly submits that Section 12(3) report is based on the Observation Note and the charge sheet. Admittedly, the charge sheet was part of the record before the learned Special Judge, who has recorded the above finding. This Court was conscious that in the writ proceedings, the proceedings in the Departmental Inquiries shall not be ordinarily interfered with. But in this case, charge being non- declaration of cash possessed by the petitioners and the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is that Cash Declaration Register was not maintained in the office and the said order passed by the learned Special Judge has reached finality and no purpose would be served if authorities are permitted to proceed further to conduct enquiry. It is also not in dispute that circular issued by the State Government to maintain the Cash
- 14 -
WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022 Declaration Register only after the initiation of the proceedings against the present petitioners. Thereby the petitioners have made out a case to interfere with the impugned recommendation made by the Upa-Lokayuktha and the entrustment by the State Government. It is also relevant to note at this stage that one Shiva, one of the DGO has filed the W.P. No.79/2021 challenging the very same Report, Entrustment Order, Articles of Charge and common enquiry, which came to be allowed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2021 and thereby set-aside the Report, Entrustment Order, Recommendation, Articles of Charge and the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reached finality. Thereby in all fairness, the present petitioners are also entitled to the relief on parity.
14. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed.
ii. Impugned Report bearing
No.Compt/Uplok/MYS/145/2018/DRE-4 dated
24.07.2018, Entrustment Order bearing No.
- 15 -WP No. 20942 of 2021 C/W WP No. 171 of 2022
Na Aa E 104 ACM 2018, Bangalore dated 17.09.2018 and impugned Articles of Charge bearing No.Uplok-2/DE/447/2018/ARE-4 dated 02.11.2018 vide Annexures-C, D and E respectively are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Page No.1 to 6 - kcm 6 to end - MBM