Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, JJ.
Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe S/o Gurunath Rao – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP Nos. 104460, 104461, 104462 of 2018
Decided On : 10-09-2018
For the Petitioner: Sri. Basavaraj Bannur.
For the Respondents: Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Government and the Lokayuktha in conducting disciplinary enquiry proceedings, emphasizing the importance of participation in the enquiry proceedings and the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 - Jurisdiction - Entrustment of case to Lokayuktha - [ENTRUSTMENT OF CASE TO LOKAYUKTHA] - Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Section 14A - The court discussed the entrustment of the case by the State Government under Rule 14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the articles of charge issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha. It interpreted the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 and the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 to determine the jurisdiction of the State Government and the Upa-Lokayuktha in conducting disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioners. The court held that the State Government had the jurisdiction to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and the Upa-Lokayuktha had the authority to issue articles of charges. The court also emphasized the importance of participation in the enquiry proceedings and the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of entrustment and articles of charges issued by the State Government and the Lokayuktha before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT). The KAT rejected the applications, leading to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the entrustment of the case and the issuance of articles of charge were within the jurisdiction of the State Government and the Lokayuktha. It emphasized the importance of participation in the enquiry proceedings and the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the entrustment of the case and the articles of charge can be challenged before the KAT. 2. Whether the petitioners had grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the KAT.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government had the jurisdiction to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and the Upa-Lokayuktha had the authority to issue articles of charges. It also emphasized the importance of participation in the enquiry proceedings and the principle of estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations should not influence the inquiry officer/disciplinary authority in taking independent decisions in accordance with the law.
1. These writ petitions are filed against the order dated 26.06.2018 made in application Nos. 5018/2018, 5019/2018 and 5020/2018 rejecting the applications of the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation.
2. The petitioner Sri. Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe filed the application in Nos. 5018/2018 and 5019/2018 before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short “KAT”) challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per Annexure-A15 for entrustment of the case under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 for short) by the Government and articles of charge issued dated 14.09.2017 as per Annexure-A16 by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and also challenged the entrustment order dated 22.12.2016 as per Annexure-A20 by the Government and articles of charge issued by the third respondent, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer dated 07.08.2017 as per Anneuxre-21 in respect of the two charges.
3. Sri. V.P. Katewal filed an application in No.5020/2018 challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per Annexure-A6 by the State Government for entrustment of the case to the Lokayuktha and article of charges dated 14.09.2017 as per Anneuxre-A7 issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha.
I. Facts of the case :
4. It is the case of the petitioner Sri. Vijaya Kumar G. Sulakhe that he was appointed as daily wage employee in the Gadag Betageri Municipality in the year 1981 and the service came to be regularized on 27.11.1996 to the post of Junior Health Inspector at Gadag Betageri Municipality w.e.f. 02.11.1991 and the petitioner Sri. V.P. Katewal was working as Town Municipal Council, Gajendragad. The things to thus : One Mr. Huligeppa S. Bandiwaddar filed the complaint on 13.12.2012 before the Lokayuktha alleging that the irregularities in the civil work carried out at Town Panchayath, Naregal. The Lokayuktha conducted the investigation in pursuance of the said complaint, prepared a preliminary investigation report. On the basis of the report submitted by the Lokayuktha, the State Government exercising the powers under Section 14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 has entrusted the matter to the Lokayuktha for conducting disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioners. On the basis of the said entrustment, the third respondent – the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer, Lokayuktha issued articles of charge to both the petitioners on 14.09.2017. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the applications stated supra before KAT challenging both the entrustment order and articles of charges issued by the respondents.
5. The KAT considering the entire material on record by the impugned common order dated 26.06.2018 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.
II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties :
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri. Basavaraj Bannur, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT rejecting the applications are erroneous, contrary to law. He would further contended that the specific grounds urged by the petitioners before KAT are that the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners during discharge of their duties as Municipal servants. Hence, the State Government has no jurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. He would further contended that Sri. Vijay Kumar V. Salukhe has become Government servant only on 10.10.2014 by the order dated 10.10.2014 as per Annexure-A5, prior to that he was not a Government servant. Therefore, the initiation of departmental enquiry by the State Government is totally without jurisdiction.
8. He further contended that the articles of charge issued by the th
