Back
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Karnataka Lokayukta R/By Its Registrar – Appellant
Versus
Ishwar S/o Krishna Appaji Wadaka – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
This Writ Petition by the Lokayukta invokes writ jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of Service Tribunal’s Order dated 07.12.2021 whereby respondent – employee’s Application No.5116/2018 having been favoured the punishment order of compulsory retirement dated 07.04.2018 has been set aside.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Ashok Harnanahalli argues that there are two significant infirmities in the impugned order namely: (i) the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is violation of Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 when apparently there is compliance and therefore there was absolutely no scope for invoking Section 9(3)(a) & (b) of the Act vide N. Gundappa Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 KAR 223; (ii) in any event, after quashment of punishment order, the Tribunal could not have foreclosed the proceedings, but could have remanded the matter for consideration afresh. He also points out that long pendency of a matter is no ground for foreclosing the proceedings more particularly when the delinquent employee is still in service.
3. After service of notice, the delinquent employee being the first respondent h
The Lokayukta has locus standii to challenge Tribunal orders affecting its statutory duties, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural norms in disciplinary proceedings.
The Lokayukta is a necessary party in proceedings under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, affirming its quasi-judicial role.
The court clarified that inquiries against retired government servants can proceed under Rule 214 of KCSR despite Rule 14-A's limitations, affirming the Lokayukta's authority to conduct such inquirie....
The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the disciplinary actions of public servants as stipulated in Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal....
The Government is the sole disciplinary authority competent to impose penalties following an enquiry by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under the Karnataka CCA Rules, 1957.
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
