Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
K.S. Nanjegowda - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 48384 of 2017, 61697 of 2016
Decided On : 12-11-2020
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Government's orders entrusting disciplinary proceedings against two petitioners to the Upalokayukta (Ombudsman) were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory provisions and lack of examination of the investigation report. The Court held that the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and Rule 14-A(2)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, are mandatory and require the Government to examine the investigation report and provide reasons for entrusting the proceedings to the Upalokayukta or the disciplinary authority. The Court also held that the petitioners' acquittal in criminal cases did not bar the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but the acquittal orders should be considered in the departmental inquiry. The Court set aside the Government orders and directed the Government to re-examine the investigation reports and decide on entrusting the proceedings to the appropriate authority.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitioners, Nanjegowda and N.G. Nataraj, were involved in parallel criminal and departmental proceedings arising from allegations of illegal gratification and demand and acceptance of bribes. They were acquitted in the criminal cases, but the Upalokayukta submitted investigation reports under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending disciplinary action. The Government entrusted the disciplinary proceedings to the Upalokayukta, and the petitioners challenged the Government orders and the issuance of Articles of Charge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Government orders entrusting the disciplinary proceedings to the Upalokayukta were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and Rule 14-A(2)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Court held that these provisions are mandatory and require the Government to examine the investigation report and provide reasons for entrusting the proceedings to the Upalokayukta or the disciplinary authority. The Court also found that the petitioners' acquittal in the criminal cases did not bar the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but the acquittal orders should be considered in the departmental inquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government's orders entrusting disciplinary proceedings to the Upalokayukta were valid. 2. Whether the petitioners' acquittal in criminal cases barred the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Government's orders entrusting disciplinary proceedings to the Upalokayukta were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and Rule 14-A(2)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Court held that these provisions are mandatory and require the Government to examine the investigation report and provide reasons for entrusting the proceedings to the Upalokayukta or the disciplinary authority. 2. The Court held that the petitioners' acquittal in the criminal cases did not bar the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but the acquittal orders should be considered in the departmental inquiry.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Government orders and directed the Government to re-examine the investigation reports and decide on entrusting the proceedings to the appropriate authority.
JUDGMENT
P.B. Bajanthri, J. - These two petitions involve common parties. The issues arising therein for decision is also common as would appear from the discussion infra. Therefore, this Court proposes to decide these two petitions by a common order.
2. The petitioner has assailed the Government Order dated 17.10.2016 and framing of Article of Charges by the Upalokayukta dated 21.11.2016 (Annexures E and G respectively) in Writ Petition No.48384/2017 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.61697/2016 has assailed the Government Order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the first respondent and framing of Article of Charges by the Upalokayuktha dated 7.11.2016 (Annexures J & K) respectively.
3. The FACTS AS DISCERN FROM WRIT PETITION NO.48384/2017 ARE AS UNDER:
Respondents initiated parallel proceedings against the petitioner arising out of the allegation that on 18.06.2010 at about 11.00 a.m., one Sri B P Ramegowda along with H U Prakash approached the petitioner in the BBMP office near Srigandha Kavalu Bus Stand, Bengaluru and enquired about arrears of house tax. The petitioner told Ramegowda that tax for the past 3 years was not paid and informed that the tax worked out to Rs.50,000/-. Ramegowda asked the petitioner to verify the arrears of tax and calculate properly. Instead of properly calculating tax, petitioner is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/-. On 19.06.2010, Ramegowda paid sum of Rs.2,000/-. Petitioner was not satisfied with the sum of Rs.2,000/- and once again insisted for payment of Rs.6,000/-. Complainant being dissatisfied with the demand made by the petitioner, registered a complaint on 19.06.2020. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.23/2010 was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act, 1988' for short), consequently, FIR was registered. Thus, trap proceedings was laid against the petitioner in respect of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of sum of Rs.6,000/-.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, petitioner was dismissed from service by the appointing authority/BBMP on 08.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.30375/2010 and this Court granted interim order on 31.05.2011. Petitioner submitted copy of the interim order dated 31.05.2011 in the Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta. Office of the Upalokayukta deferred the preparation and submission of report under Section 12(3) of The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1984' for short) without examining whether interim order dated 31.05.2011 would be a hurdle for preparation and submission of report under Section 12(3) of Act, 1984.
5. In the criminal proceedings in Special C.C.No.342/2010, petitioner was acquitted on 30.07.2015 on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-24). Respondents have taken a decision not to prefer appeal against acquittal of the petitioner.
6. Office of the Upalokayukta prepared report under Section 12(3) of Act, 1984 on 10.08.2016 and it was forwarded to the State Government on 16.08.2016. Based on the report of the office of the Upalokayukta dated 10.08.2016, State Government entrusted disciplinary proceedings to the Office of the Upalokayukta on 17.10.2016. Consequently, office of the Upalokayukta initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing Article of Charges on 02.11.2016. The present writ petition is filed on 25.10.2017. When things stood thus, petitioner is stated to have attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020. W.P.30375/2010 was allowed on 01.10.2020 pertaining to petitioner's dismissal from service.
7. The CASE RUN IN WRIT PETITION NO.61697/2016 IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT RUN IN W.P.No.48384/2017.
In Writ Petition No.61697/2016 the petitioner N.G. Nataraj was appointed as a Bill Collector on daily wage basis at Bommanahalli Grama Panchayath, Bengaluru S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
