Karnataka High Court
Sri Shrishail Muchandi vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 21 September, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
W.P.NO.200745/2018 (S-KAT)
C/W
W.P.No.208173/2017, W.P.No.203482/2017 (S-KAT),
W.P.No.203361/2017, W.P.No.203362/2017 (S-KAT),
& W.P.No.208174/2017 (S-KAT)
In W.P.No.200745/2018:
BETWEEN:
Sri Shrishail Muchandi
S/o Lakshman Muchandi,
Aged About 56 Years
Assistant Engineer
Public Works Department on Deputation
to Rural Development & Panchayathraj
O/o The Assistant Executive Engineer
PRE Sub Division, R/at Flat No:11
No:1-891/89/4C/11, Thejaswini Building
Behind Sun International, Varada Nagar
Kalaburagi, Kalaburagi District.
... Petitioner
(Sri S.V. Biradar, Sri Vijaykumar Bajentri &
Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocates)
2
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented By Its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayathraj Department,
Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The State Of Karnataka,
Rep by Its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Ports & Inland Water Transport
Department,
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayath, Kalaburagi,
Kalaburagi District-585101.
4. The Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Rep by its Registrar, M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001.
5. The Additional Registrar Of Enquiries-8,
Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001.
.... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1 & R2,
R3 is Served
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Adv. for R4 & R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records
relating to the order dated: 21.12.2017 passed in Application
No.7290/2017 (Annexure-A) and after perusal set aside the
same and allow the application as prayed for and etc.
3
In W.P.No.208173 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Shri B.S. Chavan S/o Sankar
Aged About 55 Years,
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
O/o The Additional Director of Agriculture
Near Sub Jail, Devadurga,
Raichur District-585401.
... Petitioner
(Sri: G.B. Yadav, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary
to Government,
Department of Agriculture,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta
Represented by its Registrar,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat, Raichur-585401.
... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Adv. for R2;
Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Adv. for R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash, by issue of a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order the
4
impugned order dated: 12.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
A.No.3054/2017 (Annexure-C) and impugned orders
No.KraE.98/KraPaVi/2016 dated:05.01.2017 issued by the
1st respondent (vide Annexure-A5 in A.No.3054/2017) and
No.Upaloka-1/DE/52/2017/Aa.Ni.V.8 dated: 28.02.2017
issued by the 2nd respondent (vide Annexure-A6 in
A.No.3054/2017) as null and void with all consequential
benefits and etc.
In W.P.No.203482 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pramod Mogare
S/o Gundacharya Mogera,
Aged About 47 Years,
Panchayath Development Officer,
Karajigi Grama Panchayath, Afzalpur Taluk,
Kalaburagi District, R/At:No.11/366/145,
Opposite Hanuman Temple Road
Sathyadan Krupa,
Ganga Nagar, Brahmpura, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(Sri S.V. Biradar, Sri Vijaykumar Bajentri &
Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocates)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary
to Government, Department of Rural Development &
Panchayath Raj,
M S Building, Bengaluru - 560001
5
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayath, Kalaburgi (Gulbarga)
Kalaburgi District - 581301
3. Karnataka Lokayukta,
Represented By Its Registrar
M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru - 560001
4. The Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1
Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru - 560001
... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, GA for R1;
R2 Served
Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Adv. For R3 & R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for records relating to
the order dated: 12.07.2017 passed in Application
No.1868/2017 (Annexure-A) and after perusal set aside the
same and allow the Application as prayed for and etc.
In W.P.No.203361 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
Smt. N. Tara
W/o Late Veeresh,
Aged About 38 Years,
Panchayat Development Officer,
Kapagal Gram Panchayat,
Kapagal, Manvi Taluk,
Raichur District.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. G.B. Yadav, Advocate)
6
And:
1. The State of Karnataka represented
By its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, M.S. Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta represented
By its Registrar,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat, Raichur-584101.
... Respondents
(Sri. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1;
Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Adv. for 2;
R3 Served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash, by issue of a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order the
impugned order dated: 12.07.2017 passed in the Karnataka
Administrative at Bengaluru by the Hon'ble Tribunal in
A.No.2324/2017 (vide Annexure-C) and impugned orders
No.GraAaPa.125.GraPamKa/2017 dated:10.03.2017 issued
by the 1st respondent (vide Annexure-A2 in A.No.2324/2017)
as null and void with all consequential benefits and etc.
In W.P.No.203362 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Shri Babu Rathod
S/o Bheemalal Rathod,
Aged About:49 Years,
Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat,
7
Lingasugur, Raichur District.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. G.B. Yadav, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented
By its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
M.S. Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta represented,
By its Registrar,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat, Raichur-584101.
... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1;
Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Adv. for R2;
R3 is Served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash, by issue of a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order the
impugned order dated: 12.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble
Tribunal in A.No.2323/2017 (Annexure-C) and impugned
orders No.GraAaPa.133.ENQ.16 dated: 07.11.2016 issued by
the 1st respondent (vide Annexure-A5 in A.No.2323/2017)
and No.Upaloka-1/DE/614/2016/Aa.Ni.V.8 dated
31.01.2017 issued by the 2 nd respondent (vide Annexure-A6
in A.No.2323/2017) as null and void with all consequential
benefits and etc.
8
In W.P.No.208174 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
Sri Venkatesh Desai S/o Bheemasain Rao,
Aged About 36 Years,
Panchayat Development Officer,
Gram Panchayat, Nagarahal, Lingasugur Taluk,
Raichur District-585401.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. G.B. Yadav, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Department, M.S. Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Rep. by its Registrar,
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001.
..... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Adv. for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an order of
direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated: 09.11.2017 passed in A.No.6532/2017
(Annexure-B) by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru and to quash, by issue of a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order the
9
impugned order bearing No.GraAaPa/744/GraPamKa/2017
dated: 09.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent (vide
Annexure-A6 in Annexure-A) as null and void with all
consequential benefits, etc.
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
03.09.2020, coming on for pronouncement of order this day,
Krishna S. Dixit J., made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing a set of Judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereafter 'KAT'), whereby their challenge to the initiation and entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta, has been negatived; after service of notice, the official respondents having entered appearance through the learned AGA and the learned Panel Counsel, oppose these Writ Petitions.
2. Brief facts:
(a) All the petitioners happen to be the Civil Servants of various designations; they were associated 10 with a project work relatable to MGNAREGA Scheme, inter alia funded by the Central Government; on the complaint of a citizen as to non-completion of work, it's substandard accomplishment and misappropriation of funds, the Lokayukta Office having investigated into the matter under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereafter 'Lokayukta Act') submitted the Report to the Government prima facie finding the allegations to be true; the Government decided to hold disciplinary enquiry, and having initiated one entrusted the same to the Office of Upa-
lokayukta in terms of Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereafter 'CCA Rules');
(b) Aggrieved by the initiation of disciplinary enquiry and its entrustment to the Upa-lokayukta, petitioners had filed the Applications under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereafter 'AT 11 Act'); the Hon'ble KAT having examined the matter, declined to interfere; hence these Writ Petitions; since all these petitions are structured on a similar fact matrix and involve common questions of law, the same are taken up together for hearing and disposal with the concurrence of the Bar.
3. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners argued that: (i) a single Member of the KAT could not have heard & decided their grievances because of the Notification of 2006; (ii) in view of the provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereafter 'NREG Act') and the Instructions on Ombudsman, 2014 (hereafter 'Ombudsman Instructions') read with section 8 of Lokayukta Act, the Upa-lokayukta could not have investigated into the complaint and therefore initiation of enquiry founded on his Report, is incompetent; (iii) since the petitioners are on deputation to another department, Rule 15 of CCA 12 Rules authorizes the borrowing department to hold disciplinary enquiry, and not their parent department;
(iv) in the absence of authorization under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, no joint enquiry was incompetent; (v) holding of two simultaneous inquiries on the same set of allegations is impermissible; and (vi) the Order under Rule 14-A entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to Upa- lokayukta is bad for non-application of mind;
4. Learned AGA and the learned Panel Counsel for the Lokayukta made submission in justification of the impugned KAT judgments and sought dismissal of petitions, specifically pointing out the long delay brooked in the matter of disciplinary enquiry.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the petition papers; we have adverted to the rulings cited at the Bar; we are not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
13
(a) As to competence of single Member (Judicial) of KAT to decide petitioners' cases:
(i) The contention that in view of Notification dated 24.08.2006 issued by the Chairman of the KAT, a single Member of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudge grievance of the petitioners merits examination and takes us to the following observations of the Apex Court in L.CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA, (1997) 3 SCC 261 at paragraph-95:
"95. ... It has been urged that only those who have had judicial experience should be appointed to such Tribunals. In the case of Administrative Tribunals, it has been pointed out that the Administrative Members who have been appointed have little or no experience in adjudicating such disputes; the Malimath Committee has noted that at times IPS Officers have been appointed to these Tribunals. It is stated that in the short tenures that these Administrative Members are on the Tribunal, they are unable to attain enough experience in adjudication and in cases where they do acquire the ability, it is invariably on the eve of the expiry of their tenures. For these reasons, it has been urged that the appointment of Administrative Members to Administrative Tribunals be stopped. We find it difficult to accept such a contention. It must be 14 remembered that the setting up of these Tribunals is founded on the premise that specialist bodies comprising both trained administrators and those with judicial experience would, by virtue of their specialised knowledge, be better equipped to dispense speedy and efficient justice. It was expected that a judicious mix of Judicial Members and those with grassroot experience would best serve this purpose. To hold that the Tribunal should consist only of Judicial Members would attack the primary basis of the theory pursuant to which they have been constituted. ..."
(ii) Section 3 of the AT Act is it's Dictionary Clause; clause (t) of this section defines the "Tribunal" to mean the Central Administrative Tribunal or a State Administrative Tribunal or a Joint Administrative Tribunal; clause (aa) defines "Administrative Tribunal"
in relation to a State to mean the Administrative Tribunal for the State; section 5 provides for composition of the Tribunals and their Benches; there is sufficient indication in the language of this section that, ordinarily the Tribunal shall consist of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member; however, the substantive part of sub-section (6) of section 5 which 15 begins with "non-obstante clause" has the following text:
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be competent for the Chairman or any other Member authorized by the Chairman in this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman may by general or special order specify"
(iii) True it is that the then Chairman of Hon'ble KAT in terms of section 5(6) of the AT Act has issued a Notification way back in 2006, which reads as under:
"IN THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE NO.KAT/EST(1)/CC/SMB/14/04 B.D.A.Complex, Indiranagar Bangalore-38, Dated: 24th August 2006 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(6) read with Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and all other powers enabling thereunto in supersession of all earlier notifications issued identifying the class of cases/matters for disposal in which Single Member Bench could exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal, the Judicial Members of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, sitting single are hereby authorized to function as a Bench to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority to the Tribunal in respect of 16 all the matters/cases filed into the Tribunal, except the following class of cases/matters, coming into force with effect from 28.08.2006:-
1. Disciplinary proceedings where orders of dismissal or compulsory retirement is ordered.
2. All matters relating to pay, pay scale, pay fixation and Pay Commission.
3. All matters involving constitutional validity, interpretation of statutes, Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
4. Contempt of Tribunal Applications.
Provided that at any stage of hearing of any case or matter it appears to the Single Member bench that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Division Bench comprising of atleast one Judicial Member such matters/cases may be referred to the Chairman for referring the same to an appropriate Division Bench.
By Order of Hon'ble the Chairman Registrar I/c.
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore"
It needs no mention that the cases of the petitioners before the KAT apparently involved interpretation of the provisions of NREG Act, Lokayukta Act, Karnataka NREG Rules & other subordinate legislations and therefore the learned Chairman of the KAT sitting single on the Bench did not have competence to adjudge the cause of the petitioners; the submission of learned AGA and the Panel Counsel that the petitioners should be 17 estopped from taking up such contention since they did not object to the learned single Member of the Tribunal hearing the matter, is bit difficult to countenance since this question goes to the root of the matter, there being no estoppel against law; the Apex Court in KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN, AIR 1954 SC 340 has ruled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and challenge thereto is maintainable even in collateral proceedings; however, it remains inscrutable as to why, petitioners did not tell all this to the KAT and instead argued their cases on merits; thus it is they who occasioned the passing of impugned judgments having said this, we have taken up these matters on merits since their remand for consideration afresh at the hands of the KAT at this length of time is not desirable; it hardly needs to be stated that the writ jurisdiction having been constitutionally vested is not affected by the establishment of the Tribunal and therefore this court can itself hear the matter on merits. 18
(b) As to bar of Lokayukta investigation and consequent invalidity of disciplinary proceedings:
Mr. Bajentri and Mr. Joshi, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Lokayukta could not have investigated into the complaints of the citizen in the matter and therefore the disciplinary enquiry ordered by the Government on the basis of Lokayukta Report is incompetent and consequently its entrustment to the Lokayukta is also null & void; in support of their contention they banked upon the provisions of certain Acts and Rules mentioned hereunder:
i) Section 8(1)(b) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act 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) xxxxx
(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, 19 review or other proceedings before any Tribunal, Court Officer or other authority and has not availed of the same."
ii) Sections 27(2) and 28 of the NREG Act, has the following text:
"S.27 (1) xxxxx.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on receipt of any complaint regarding the issue or improper utilization of funds granted under this Act in respect of any Scheme if prima facie satisfied that there is a case, cause an investigation into the complaint made by any agency designated by it and if necessary, order stoppage of release of funds to the Scheme and institute appropriate remedial measures for its proper implementation within a reasonable period of time."
"28. The provisions of this Act or the Schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law:
(the provisos not being relevant, are not reproduced)
iii) Paragraph 8.1 of Instructions on Ombudsman dated 16.01.2014 reads as under:20
"8.1 The Ombudsman shall have power to receive complaints from MGNREGA workers and others on any matters.... and issue direction for conducting spot inspection...and 'direct redressal, disciplinary and corrective actions' (Emphasis supplied)
iv) Karnataka NREG (Grievance Redressal) Rules, 2009; these rules are little inartistically worded, they provide for appointment of Grievance Redressal Officer who would entertain the complaints and grant redressal concerning the same; the GRO has power to give direction to the authorities concerned as part of redressal.
c) The Lokayukta Act, 1984 is enacted by the State Legislature for the purpose of improving the standards of public administration and for this purpose a complaint redressal machinery like the Lokayukta and Upa-lokayuktas have been put in place; thus, this is a legislation relating to governance reforms; it is referable to the Entries in the State List; true it is that, section 8(1)(b) of this Act interdicts conducting of investigation 21 by the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta if the complainant has or had an alternate remedy and he had not availed one;
the complaints contemplated under the provisions of this Act are directed against the Government servants/public servants in the discharge of their official duties; on the other hand, the NREG Act enacted by the Parliament is a rag-bag legislation since it is referable to multiple Entries in the Central List; this Act is intended to guarantee 180-days-wage- employment in every financial year to the rural people so that they hold their body & soul together; thus, it is a socio-welfare legislation.
(d) Various agencies such as Central Government, State Government, Local Bodies, NGOs and governmental organizations are appointed for implementing the schemes formulated under the NREG Act; it is also true that, even this Act and the Rules made thereunder provide for the constitution of 22 redressal machinery, such as Ombudsman or the Grievance Redressal Officer, who look into the complaints and have power to give necessary directions; however, merely on that ground we cannot hastily conclude that this Act and Lokayukta Act are pari materia legislations occupying the same field or that they treat the same matter and grant similar redressal to the aggrieved; it is difficult to approximate the complaints made under one Act to those filed the other; amplitude of the jurisdiction of authorities to lawfully grant redressal under the respective Acts being different they effectuate altogether different purposes; true it is, there is some indication in the Ombudsman Instructions and the Karnataka KREG Rules that these authorities may direct even disciplinary action to be held by the competent authorities; however, that does not mean that the disciplinary power which ordinarily inheres in every employer, is in any way affected thereby; the power to direct disciplinary enquiry which 23 the Grievance Redressal Officer under the Karnataka Rules arguably has, may also lead to a disciplinary enquiry, is beside the point; but again here too it is the Government which has to hold the enquiry; thus, the power to hold disciplinary enquiry is left intact with the Government, in any circumstance; for the same reason, the reliance on paragraph 8.1 of the Instructions on Ombudsman, 2014 which is reproduced above does not much advance the case of petitioners; therefore, it can be safely stated that the disciplinary control of the employer over his employees arises as a condition or as an incident of service itself although it is regulated by the provisions of CCA Rules; in view of this position of law, we cannot falter Lokayukta investigation.
e) As to initiation of disciplinary enquiry by incompetent department of the Government:
Learned counsel Mr. Bajentri contended that all the petitioners are on deputation to the Department of Rural Development & Panchayatraj and therefore for the 24 alleged misconduct, the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings is the borrowing department itself and not the parent department; in support of this, he invokes sub-rule 2-A (i) of Rule 15 of CCA Rules which reads as under:
"(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules.-
(i) the Government in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Departments in respect of Government servant holding a Group A or B post whose services are lent to the Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat by an order issued by the Government in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department under Section 155 or 196 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ... shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of taking a disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 on such Government servant. It shall not be necessary for the Government in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department or the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to get the approval of, or to consult, the lending authority or the Appointing Authority as the case may be, before placing such Government servant 25 under suspension or imposing on him any of the said penalties."
Rule 15 provides for initiation of disciplinary action by borrowing authority against officials on deputation, is true; Rules 2-A, 2-B & 2-C empower the borrowing departments to suspend the deputationist or take disciplinary action subject to riders enacted therein, is also true; the borrowing authority can impose the penalties prescribed in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 as provided under Rule 16(2), is not disputable; however, the language of the Proviso to Rule 16 makes it abundantly clear that the ultimate authority to punish the civil servant who is on deputation, lies with the Government only, when the disciplinary proceedings are structured for major penalties such as reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service, even in respect of lent hands; an interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioners on the provisions of Rules 15 & 16 to the contra intent is bit difficult to countenance; after all, the 26 Government is one legal entity and all its departments are its constituent/integral units.
(f) Mr. Bajentri and Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Government by the impugned orders has entrusted the enquiry in terms of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules to the Upalokayukta-I without due application of mind and being swayed away by the version emerging from the Lokayukta Report; in support of their legal contention that the Government has to take an independent decision as to entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta in terms of Rule14-A of CCA Rules, they banked upon certain rulings; however, this proposition being well established, hardly needs substantiation; we have examined the impugned orders of the Government whereby the enquiry has been entrusted to the Upalokayukta; such entrustment does not require elaborate reasoning although it should reflect that the Government has applied its mind and 27 then taken a decision, is true; the text and context of these orders show that there is application of mind; this apart, Article 261 of the Constitution of India mandates that full faith and credit shall be given inter alia to public acts & records vide SC & ST OFFICERS WELFARE COUNCIL VS. STATE OF U.P., (1997) 1 SCC 701, the record of proceedings of the Government thus have presumptive value, subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the petitioners does not fit; therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in this contention, too.
(g) As to holding of joint enquiry:
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the absence of an order of the competent authority made under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, a joint disciplinary proceeding could not have been held, is bit difficult to agree with; true it is that, in terms of Rule 13 CCA Rules the Government may direct a joint 28 enquiry against two or more co-delinquents; the Government in its order dated 19.12.2016(Annexure-A8) whereby the enquiry is entrusted to the Upalokayukta-I in terms of Rule 14-A has authorized holding of joint enquiry although Rule 13 in so many words has not been quoted, such quoting not being the legal requirement; the operative portion of the said order reads as under:29
From the text and context of this order, one can certainly make out the authorization for holding joint enquiry; however, it would have been ideal, had Rule 13 been mentioned so that the scope for the argument of the kind would not have arisen.
(h) As to duplication of enquiry:
Learned counsel Mr. Bajentri brought to our notice that in respect of the allegations concerning development work of Nandarga to Bellurgi road in the action plan of 2012-13 the Articles of Charge have been issued on 27.02.2017 and by another order dated 18.03.2017 one more set of charges have been framed concerning the very same work; it hardly needs to be stated that a Government servant has a profound right not to be subjected to multiple disciplinary enquiries on the basis of same set of allegations; there is some force in this assertion; however, it is a matter to which the petitioners should draw the attention of concerned 30 authorities by producing necessary material for substantiation of this assertion and that the authority concerned shall look into the same dispassionately & forthwith before proceeding with the second enquiry in question;
6. The disciplinary enquiries in question are founded inter alia on the allegations as to non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance in the performance of the project works under the schemes formulated in terms of the provisions of NREG Act; years have rolled since the said allegations have been made by the citizens in their complaints of December, 2013; the Apex Court time and again has expressed anguish against long pendency & elongation of disciplinary proceedings, indefinitely; the lapse of time has got its own implications on such proceedings; the evidence may wither away and memory of men being what it is, may also fade; therefore, we are of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings in 31 question need to be accomplished in a time bound manner with the participation of all the stakeholders.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are, with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only payable by each of the writ petitioners; their Salary Drawing Officers shall deduct this amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the salaries and remit the same to the Chief Minister's Calamity/Covid Relief Fund forthwith; the subject disciplinary enquiries shall be accomplished preferably within an outer limit of four months; the compliance of these directions shall be reported by all the concerned to the Additional Registrar General of this Court without brooking delay; non-compliance of these directions shall be construed as amounting to contempt of this court.
The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment by speed post to the Chief Secretary, Government of 32 Karnataka, Bengaluru for ensuring scrupulous compliance with the requirement.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk/BL