Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DINESH MAHESHWARI, B M SHYAM PRASAD, JJ.
Sri Gopal Hanumanth Kase S/O Late Hanumanth Kase - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development and Other - Respondent
Writ Petition No.5674 of 2018 (GM-KLA)
Decided on : 13-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Y.D. Harsha, AGA
Headnote:KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 [K.A. No. 4/1985] - Sections 2(4), 2(12), 23 & Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985, Rule 3 - Competent Authority - Issuance of entrustment order - Petitioner, working on post of Commissioner, City Municipal Council - Allegation of misconduct against petitioner - Entrustment order issued by Government of Karnataka for holding inquiry - Plea that as per Rule 2 of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 Director of Municipal Administration being appointing authority is competent to entrust matter for holding inquiry - Section 2(4)(c) of Act of 1984 and Rule 3 of 1985 Rules prescribes Government of Karnataka to be competent authority for public servant - Order of entrustment, held, proper.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 [K.A. No. 4/1985] - Section 12(3) - Report submitted by the Upalokayukta-1 recommending initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner- Held, The petitioner answer to the definition of "public servant" as occurring in Clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act of 1984, being in the service of local authority in the State of Karnataka; and in his case, the Competent Authority for the purpose of dealing with the matter under the Act of 1984 would be such Authority, as may be prescribed, by virtue of sub-Clause (d) of Clause (4) of Section 2 thereof. Under the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules 1985, the Government of Karnataka is the prescribed Competent Authority for the public servants referred to in sub-Clause (d) of Clause of Section 2 of the Act of 1984.
Contents of the report made under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof, make it clear that the Upalokayukta definitely took into account the acceptable so as to drop the proceedings against him. Similarly the order passed by the Government, as the Competent Authority, for entrusting the matter to the Upalokayukta for instituting departmental inquiry cannot said to be suffering from non-application of mind. Therein the gist and substance of the report made be the Upalokayukta has been taken note of and it has been indicated that after perusal of the reports and the document enclosed therewith, the Government decided to institution the inquiry.
At the given stage of entrusting the matter for inquiry, the Government, as the Competent Authority, was not expected to enter into a detailed or even a summary inquiry with consideration of reply/defence of the petitioner. The impugned order, read as a whole, makes it clear that the satisfaction of the Competent Authority about existence of the prima facie case has been indicated therein and that had been sufficient compliance of the requirement of law.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the report dated 14.08.2017, as made by the Upalokayukta-1, Karnataka State; the entrustment order dated 07.12.2017, as issued by the Government of Karnataka in its Urban Development Department; and the Article of Charges dated 04.01.2018, as issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-9, Karnataka Lokayukta.
2. It is contended that the petitioner, working on the post of Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Jamakhandi, is governed by the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 [‘the Rules of 2010’]. According to the petitioner, as per the said Rules of 2010, the Director of Municipal Administration is the appointing and the disciplinary authority in his regard and hence, the Government has no power to regulate his service conditions; that only the said Director is the competent authority to entrust the matter for holding inquiry; and that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to pass any such entrustment order. The petitioner has also questioned the report submitted by the Upalokayukta-1 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 [‘the Act of 1984’], recommending initiation of disciplinary action against him without considering his reply. It is further submitted that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1, while issuing the order impugned.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has refuted the contentions aforesaid with the submissions that the reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered by the Upalokayukta-1, who declined to drop the proceedings after finding a prima facie case of misconduct, and recommended to the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has particularly referred to the definition of “competent authority” as occurring in Section 2(4) of the Act of 1984, as also that of “public servant” in Section 2(12) thereof. Learned AGA has also referred to the recommendation of the competent authority as specified under the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 [‘the Rules of 1985’].
5. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to and relied upon the following decisions:
(1) M/S. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS: ILR 2015 KAR 5591;
(2) ORDER DATED 06.03.2017 IN W.P.NO.43079/2015: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA & ANOTHER VS. SRI H.N. NIRANJAN AND ANOTHER;
(3) ORDER DATED 04.10.2016 IN W.P.NO.23522/2016: MR. JAYAPRAKASH K. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS; AND
(4) ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 IN W.P.NO.58174/2017: SRI GOPALAKRISHNA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS.
6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the matter in its totality, we find no reason to consider any interference.
7. The decision in M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had been on an entirely different set of facts and grounds, where the complainant concerned had exhausted all the remedies under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and before the High Court and thereafter, went on to agitate the same rights in the guise of lodging complaint to the authorities. It was further found that in view of Sections 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Act of 1984, the Karnataka Lokayukta could not have undertaken the investigation in the matter. The present matter stands at a different footing, for the reason that, in essence, the allegation against the petitioner is of not attending on his duties of removing the unauthorized construction, despite having been directed to do so by the authority concerned.
8. In the case of H.N. Niranjan (supra), this Court has indicated that there has to be an examination of the case by the Government under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 with due application of mind while concurring with the opinion of the Lokayukta for initiation of the inquiry.
