Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
K.N. Phaneendra, Pradeep Singh Yerur, JJ.
R.V. Jattanna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 105359 of 2019, 114148 of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2020
G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate, Santosh B Malagoudar, Advocate, J.S. Shetty, Advocate
Headnote:
Karnataka Lokayukta Act - Section 12 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Karnataka Municipalities Rules, 2010 - Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 - Rule 11 - CCA Rules - Rule 12 - Member of State Legislature - No jurisdiction – Employment and service - Whether he is working as a government servant by said substitution of rule 11 or he is working under any public authorities or any other statutory authorities they all categorized as public servants as per Section 2 (12) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act - Whether it is incumbent upon Government to send investigation or enquiry report submitted under Section 12(3) to concerned disciplinary authorities either to take action to proceed with disciplinary action or to intimate action taken are proposed to be taken against its employee on basis of report - Court have heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 - Court have also carefully perused legal grounds raised in these writ petitions and also factual aspects - Facts which are not in dispute are that 2nd respondent after conducting a preliminary enquiry submitted his report holding that a prima-facie case has been made out for purpose of conducting disciplinary enquiry against petitioners and as per Annexure-B requested the 1s t respondent State Government to entrust matter for purpose of conducting disciplinary enquiry as per paragraph of order – Held, Commission was also asked to examine various issues including problems of redress of Citizens Grievances mainly concentrating with regard to eradicating corruption which was rampant - Commission after elaborate discussion suggested for establishment in Centre and in States holding that hands of Governments would be strengthened by such institutions - It was considered that public opinion has been agitated for a long time over prevalence of corruption in administration and it is likely that cases coming up before which is an independent authority might involve in dealing with allegations of corrupt motive and favoritism in respect of Government authorities and as well as public servants – Therefore institution should be so strong to deal with such cases - Commission also suggested as Ministers Secretaries and other persons occupying highest position would also come under purview therefore said institution must be headed by a strong dedicated and equipped personality – Perhaps that may be reason retired Chief Justices and Judges of High Court are preferred for appointment - It is also to be a notable point that persons who occupy such position should be independent and impartial - Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in a private and informal in character - Therefore is purely non political and their status is compared with highest judicial functionaries in Country they should deal with matters in discretionary fields involving acts of injustice corruption or favoritism – Therefore proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference and they are given maximum latitude and powers in obtaining information relevant to their duties - In above said backdrop object and purpose and also considering status were selected from judicial system has to be borne in mind in order to ascertain veracity of powers given to government under Act has to be tested - Under Act after considering the allegations made against any public servant or a government servant and after examining materials provided and collected by him and after giving opportunity to delinquent employee sends a report to government under Section 12(3) of Act - Said report would be sent by after satisfying himself that the allegations are wholly or partially true and after expressing his satisfaction he would send a report under above said provisions – Therefore when a highest functionary of said institution and particularly after taking into consideration above said criteria’s sends a report such report should not be in any manner taken by any person in a casual manner lot of sanctity and weight is attached to such reports - Perhaps that may be the reason that if a report is submitted to Government if it is sent to any other disciplinary authority or concerned department there is chances of those authorities sitting over opinion and exercising their powers to nullify effect of said report of by simply sending action taken report even under certain circumstances casually saying that no action is necessary - There is no bar under any other provision of law because Rule 14(a)(ii)(iii) which we have already referred to Government has got power to refer matter to disciplinary authorities concerned only for purpose of imposing punishment u/s 12 to disciplinary authorities after receiving report particularly after disciplinary enquiry is conducted and report is submitted with recommendation - So this will clarify situation that under Rule 14(A)(iii) Government has got power to receive disciplinary enquiry report and thereafter only it can refer same to disciplinary authorities to impose penalty when Government itself is not disciplinary authority to impose punishment – Therefore till that point of time under section 12 sub-section (4) government has all powers which disciplinary authority has got to refer matter for to conduct disciplinary enquiry and to report back to Government - Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
K.N.Phaneendra, J. - The present writ petitions are fi led seeking rel ief of quashing the government order passed by the 1s t respondent/the State of Karnataka in No. NaAaE62/DMK/2018, Bengaluru, dated 28.07.2018 as per Annexure-A and also the report submitted by the 2nd respondent i.e. Upa-lokayukta in Complaint dated No.28.04.2018 in Compt/Uplok/BGM-2495/17 /ARE-6 and Compt/Uplok/BGM-2316/17/ARE-6 as per Annexure-B and for such other reliefs as the Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. We have also careful ly perused the legal grounds raised in these writ petitions and also the factual aspects. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Upa-lokayukta/2nd respondent, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, submitted his report on 28.04.2018 holding that a prima-facie case has been made out for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry against the petitioners and as per Annexure-B, requested the 1s t respondent/ State Government to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry, as per paragraph 11 and 12 of the order. After receipt of the said order, the government passed an order as per Annexure-A, entrusting the matter to Upa-lokayukta for conducting discipl inary enquiry as contemplated under Section 14 of the CCA Rules. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said discipl inary enquiry is pending before Upa-lokayukta and report is awaited.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.J.S.Shetty strenuously contends before this Court drawing our attention to Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short "the Act") particularly, with reference to Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the Act and argued that, the government has got power to receive the report from Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, and in turn also the request made by the Upa-lokayukta to hold a discipl inary enquiry against the employee of the government or any publ ic servant. But the government itself cannot refer back the matter to Upa-lokayukta to conduct for further discipl inary enquiry, because it is only the action that has been taken by the government to be reported to Upalokayukta as per Section 12(4) of the Act. The wordings used in the said provision that the action taken by the government should be intimated to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or the action proposed to be taken on the basis of the report shal l be intimated to Upa-lokayukta.
4. Referring to the present case the learned counsel very strenuously argued before this Court that, the petitioners are the municipal servants and they are governed by separate rules cal led as Karnataka Municipal ities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010. He has also drawn our attention to Rule 11 and contended that though the Karnataka Civi l Services (Classif ication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 was made appl icable to the servants of the municipal ity, but subject to modif ications specif ied in Schedule-III. Therefore, the learned counsel contends, if the said provision is read in their proper perspective, the authorities mentioned therein is not the government but municipal authorities, who are the discipl inary authorities, appointing authorities and removing authorities of its servants. Further it is contended that the employees of Municipal ities and Corporation cannot be called as publ ic servants, but they are only to be cal led as employees of the municipal ity. Therefore, he specif ical ly contends before this Court that even the provisions of CCA Rules, particularly, Rule 14(A) is appl icable, the government has only got power to receive report from Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, but the government cannot entrust back the proceedings to Upa-lokayukta for the purpose of conducting discip
