2020 Supreme(Kar) 163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
S.SUJATHA, JYOTI MULIMANI, JJ.
Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil, D/o Suresh Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.119515 of 2020 (S-KAT) C/W Writ Petition Nos.119516, 119517, 119518, 119519, 119520, 119521, 119522, 119523 and 101971 of 2020 (S-KAT)
Decided on : 14-05-2020

Headnote:

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 12(3) - Prevention of Corruption Act - Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1977 - Rule 20 - Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 - Rule 14A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 - Post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government – First Information Report - Whether Karnataka Upalokayukta had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against petitioners under provisions of Act, 1984 - Whether Rule 20 of Rules, 1977 could be invoked against petitioners - Whether clause (d) to Second Schedule read with Section 8 (1) (a) of Act, 1984 is attracted in present set of facts - Whether principles of natural justice are violated by Upalokayukta and State Government in initiating proceedings/ action against petitioners - Whether Article of Charges issued by Additional Registrar of Enquires-12 suffers from infirmities - Petitioners contend that they had appeared for written examination conducted by Government of Karnataka through Recruitment Committee Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation to post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader petitioners having successfully cleared written examination and viva voce got appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader vide appointment orders issued by competent authority - Probation period of petitioners were declared by Department of Home Government of Karnataka - A private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before Trial Court by one an unsuccessful candidate alleging that accused No.1 then Director of Prosecution and accused No.2 staff at Office of Director of Prosecution were involved in corruption with respect to recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders – Held, It is significant to note that as per Section 9 of Act, any person may make a compliant under Act to as prescribed under Rule 4 of Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 – Primarily arguments of learned counsel for petitioners are of three fold – Firstly that Upalokayukta has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation against petitioners since they could not be construed as public servants in terms of Section (2) (12) of Act on date of alleged misconduct - Secondly no investigation could be made by Upalokayukta relating to matters coming under Section 8(1)(a) and (b) of Act read with clause (d) of second schedule – Thirdly in view of de facto complaint filed under Section 166(3) by complainant before jurisdictional court and matter being ceased of said proceedings provisions of Act by Upalokayukta is barred under Section 8(b) of Act - In addition to this arguments were advanced on aspect of violation of principles of natural justice and on legality of Article of Charges framed by Registrar of Enquires - It is imperative that phrase employed in Rule 20 of Rules, 1977 is candidate not public servant or government servant - A candidate found guilty of impersonation of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his/her recruitment may in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to a criminal prosecution and to disciplinary action be debarred either permanently or for a specified period - Much emphasis was placed on phrase found guilty to contend that criminal matters are pending before jurisdictional criminal court where no decision has been rendered regarding charges leveled against petitioners or convicting them for offences alleged - It is well settled law that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar to proceed with disciplinary proceedings - Scheme of Act, Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta are conferred power to investigate into a complaint involving a grievance or allegation against a public servant - Section 7 deals with power and subject matter of investigation by Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta - Grievance or allegation should be in respect of an action as defined under Act - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta and UPa lokayukta do not extend beyond what is specifically contained in Section 7 of act - They have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a person other than a public servant as defined under Act - He has not been conferred any power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a private individual - He has not been conferred power to investigate into title of property standing in name of a private individual - He has not been conferred any power to go into validity of a sale deed a Will a gift deed executed by a private individual in favor of another private individual on ground that said subject matter of alienation is a public property - They are all matters exclusively falling within jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Lokayuktha cannot usurp power of civil Court under guise of investigation under Act - Investigation to be conducted is only with reference to action of public servant and abuse of such office allegations of corruption nepotism lack of integrity on part of public servant and any illegal gains made by such public servant - Grievance of complainant therein was that disputed land belongs to Forest Department Government of Karnataka - One had created documents showing that said land has been purchased by him in pursuance of a sale deed executed by personal secretary of Maharaja No specific complaint by name being made against any public servant responsible for actions complained writ court has held that Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate title of petitioner therein relating to disputed property in their absence - Hence though there is no cavil on legal proposition said judgment would be of no assistance to petitioner in facts and circumstances of case - Writ petitions stand dismissed