Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ARAVIND KUMAR, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, JJ.
The Karnataka State Primary School Teachers Association – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary Department of Education (Primary) – Respondent
W.P. No. 43810 of 2018
Decided On : 26-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. V.R. Sarathy.
For the Respondents: Sri. N. Balaji, Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta to investigate and hold an enquiry is limited to allegations made against a public servant as defined under the Act, and individuals who do not fall within this definition are not amenable to their jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Quashing - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta under the Act - Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Misconduct Allegations - Societies Act - Government Servant - Public Servant
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, President and Secretary of Karnataka State Primary and Higher Primary School Teachers Association, sought quashing of orders entrusting enquiry against them under Karnataka Civil Services Rules and Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Allegations of misconduct were made by a complaint lodged with the Karnataka Lokayukta against the petitioners, who were office bearers of the Association.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate and hold an enquiry only in respect of allegations made against a public servant as defined under the Act. The petitioners, being office bearers of a society registered under the Societies Act, did not fall within the definition of 'public servant' under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta had jurisdiction to investigate allegations against the petitioners, who were office bearers of a society registered under the Societies Act, for misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta to investigate is circumscribed by the powers conferred under the Act, and they have been conferred power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a public servant as defined under the Act. The petitioners, not being public servants as defined under the Act, were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the government order entrusting the enquiry against the petitioners and the report submitted by the second respondent, and ruled in favor of the petitioners.
ORDER :
1. Petitioners have sought for quashing of the order bearing No. ED-309-PBS 2017, dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by first respondent, whereunder appropriate Government has entrusted conducting of enquiry against the petitioners under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to the Upa-Lokayukta and have also sought for quashing of the report dated 14.06.2017 bearing No. Compt/Uplok/ BCD-3752/2014/ARE-5 (Annexure-B) submitted by Upa Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act’) and consequently the Articles of Charges bearing No. UPLOK-1/DE/270/2018/ARE-4 dated 25.06.2018 issued by the second respondent against them.
2. Petitioners are the President and Secretary of Karnataka State Primary and Higher Primary School Teachers Association (for short ‘Association’) which is an institution registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registrations Act, 1960 (for short ‘Societies Act’). Said association as per by-laws (Annexure-D) has been formed with the object of upholding and safeguarding the interest of its members and to fight for protection and better service conditions for Government primary teachers as well as to provide assistance to the State Government in rendering better education facilities to the needy students while preparing curriculum. The said association is governed by an executive body which is otherwise called as state body at state capital apart from district bodies at each district head quarters and taluk bodies at each taluk of the State. Membership of the said association is available to all the teachers working in Government primary school and higher primary schools including its Head Masters on payment of requisite admission fee as well as membership fee which was renewed from time to time. State Government has recognized the said association as the body representing the Government Teachers. Petitioners are said to have been elected as president and secretary during the year 2009.
3. One Sri. Shankar Gowda B. Patil who was the President of Dharwad District Teachers Association during the year 2009 to 2014 lodged a complaint on 06.11.2014 (Annexure-K) with the Karnataka Lokayukta second respondent making certain allegations against the association and sought for suitable action being taken against them. It was also alleged that acts of the petitioners amounted to misconduct. Lokayukta forwarded said complaint to the petitioners, upon which a reply came to be submitted by the petitioners on 14.10.2015. It is thereafter office of the Upa-Lokayukta called for a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on receipt of said report, Upa-Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) to the appropriate Government on 14.06.2017 (Annexure-B). Based on it appropriate Government by order dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure-A) entrusted conducting of enquiry against the petitioners under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to Upa-Lokayukta and thereafter Articles of Charges came to be issued to the petitioners on 25.06.2018 (Annexure-C). Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings now pending before second respondent.
4. It has been averred in the petition that entrustment of enquiry by the appropriate Government to the second respondent is without authority of law and complaint itself is not maintainable for being investigated by the office of the Lokayukta, it is also contended that acts of the petitioners do not constitute an act committed by a Government Servant within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act amenable to the jurisdiction of second respondent; second respondent without considering the aspect whether such allegations made in the complaint pertain to the members of the executive body is amenable for disciplinary enquiry under Section 2(12) of the Act, so as to hold petitioners would fall within the meaning of ‘pub
