Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, JJ.
Sri R.F. Hudedavar, S/o. Late Fakkirappa & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.12300 of 2020 [GM-KLA] Connected with Writ Petition No.12278 of 2020 [GM-KLA], Writ Petition No.45764 of 2017 [GM-KLA]
Decided On : 23-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Smt. Rakshitha D. J., Advocate.
For the Respondents:Smt. Vani H., Addl. Government Advocate, Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Sri Pawan Kumar, Sri H. Devendrappa, Advocates.

The State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules because the petitioners were not Government servants within the meaning of the said Rule but were only public servants.

Headnote:
The Karnataka High Court held that the State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The Court quashed the Orders of Entrustment passed by the State Government and directed it to submit the reports under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Managing Director, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL), forthwith.
Fact of the Case:

Complaints were made to the Lokayukta alleging irregularities in the construction of low cost houses at Hagaribommanahalli Taluk. The Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the State Government recommending departmental inquiry against the petitioners, who were employees of KRIDL. The State Government, on examining the records, without calling for an opinion from KRIDL, passed an order dated 28.12.2016 initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said order and the subsequent orders passed by the Lokayukta on the ground that the State Government had no jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (CCA Rules).
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were not Government servants within the meaning of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules but were only public servants. Therefore, the State Government could not have entrusted the inquiry against the petitioners to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The Court further held that the State Government, though a competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, was required to submit the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(2) of the Act to KRIDL for taking further action in the matter.
Issues: Whether the State Government had the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules because the petitioners were not Government servants within the meaning of the said Rule but were only public servants. The Court further held that the State Government, though a competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, was required to submit the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(2) of the Act to KRIDL for taking further action in the matter.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Orders of Entrustment passed by the State Government and directed it to submit the reports under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Managing Director, KRIDL, forthwith.

ORDER :

These writ petitions have been connected together, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In essence, these appeals assail the following :

(I) In Writ Petition No.12300/2020: (i) Government Order No.Gra.Aa.Pa:21:Ka.Gra.Mu:2018, Bengaluru, dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure ‘Q’); (ii) Government Order No.UPLOK-2/DE-359/2018, Bengaluru dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure ‘R’); and (iii) Articles of Charge in reference No.UpaLok-2/DE-359/2018/ARE-8, dated: 30.08.2018 issued by the Lokayukta (Annexure ‘S’);

(II) In Writ Petition No.12278/2020: (i) Government Order No.Gra.Aa.Pa:21:Ka.Gra.Mu:2018, Bengaluru, dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure ‘Q’) passed by the State Government; (ii) Government Order No.UPLOK-2/DE-359/2018, Bengaluru, dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure ‘R’); (iii) Articles of Charge in reference No.UpaLok-2/DE-359/2018/ARE-8, dated: 30.08.2018 issued by the Lokayukta (Annexure ‘S’) under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short ‘CCA Rules’);

(III) In Writ Petition No.45764/2017: (i) Articles of Charge in reference No.UPLOK-1/DE/251/2017/ARE-4 dated 31.05.2017 issued by the Lokayukta (Annexure ‘A’); (ii) Government Order No.Gra.A.Pa:18:Ka.Gra.Mu:2016, Bengaluru, dated 28.12.2016 passed by the State Government (Annexure ‘B’) and (iii) Report dated 17.09.2016 in reference No.Compt/Uplok/GLB-5215/2012/ARE-5, issued under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘KL Act’ for short) (Annexure ‘C’).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. Since, these petitions are concerned with three different petitioners, the facts of the case, as narrated in each of these writ petitions, are culled out as under :

A. Writ Petition No.12300/2020:

(a) The Petitioner was an employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (‘KRIDL’ for the sake of convenience). Initially, he was appointed as Task Force Commander/Assistant Engineer on consolidated pay/daily wage and his services were regularised with effect from 02.05.1987 by the then Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited which was constituted in the year 1974 and was renamed as the ‘KRIDL’. Copy of the regulation order dated 02.05.1987 is at Annexure ‘A’.

(b) The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director as per order dated 18.03.2013. From 2014, the said post was renamed as Executive Engineer. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service on 30.05.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Copy of the Office order dated 30.05.2020 is at Annexure ‘B’.

(c) The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at KRIDL, HuvinaHadagali for the period from 15.12.2011 to 20.11.2015. Prior to his posting, one Sri. K.S. Siddalingappa was working as the Executive Engineer. The petitioner was in-charge of the post of Executive Engineer from 15.12.2011 till he was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 18.03.2013. The MLA of Hagaribommanahalli Constituency addressed a detailed letter on 18.05.2011 requesting the then Housing Minister to construct low cost houses in the Constituency to houseless poor people. Accordingly, on 21.05.2011, the then Housing Minister directed the Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Limited, Bengaluru (for brevity, the same is called as “RGRHCL”) to take appropriate steps. RGRHCL is a Karnataka Government undertaking financed by Central and State Governments to undertake welfare measures such as construction of houses, etc. The main object of the Corporation is to finance and monitor low cost housing constructed under ‘Basava Vasati Schemes’, ‘Indira Awas Yojana’ and ‘Ambedkar Vasati Yojana’ and other such schemes. The present housing scheme is under ‘Basava Vasati Scheme’. As per the direction of the Housing and Urban Development Minister, on 16.06.2011, the General Manager (MD), issued direction to the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Hagaribommanahalli to entrust the construction of low cost houses through the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited, now called as KRIDL. Copy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Kar) 310

The State Government did not have the jurisdiction to entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules because the petitioners were not Government servants within the meaning of the said Rule but were only public servants.

Cases Referred (3)