IMPORTANT POINT
The Lokayukta has locus standii to challenge Tribunal orders affecting its statutory duties, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural norms in disciplinary proceedings.

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 has entered appearance through his private advocate who vehemently resists the petition on the ground of lack of locus standii of the Lokayukta; the Tribunal has after examining the records has entered a finding as to non-compliance of Section 9(3) of the 1984 Act and that does merit a deeper examination in the writ jurisdiction; the Tribunal has given a cogent finding as to why it has foreclosed the proceedings; lastly, the Articles of Charge are not specific. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1 The contention of the respondent – employee that the Lokayukta has no locus standii in a matter like this is bit difficult to countenance: Firstly, the Tribunal has faltered the action on the ground that Section 9(3) of the 1984 Act has not been complied with by the Lokayukta; secondly, the Articles of Charge have not been properly framed. Both these actions apparently fall within the domain of Lokayukta as an Institution. Thirdly, the Lokayukta was a party eo nomine to the proceedings before the Tribunal and it had made all endeavors to justify its action by pointing out that Section 9(3) was duly complied with. Fourthly, if at all there is violation of said provision, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the stage of violation for consideration afresh and despite that having not been done, the Government has not chosen to challenge the Tribunal’s Order. Inaction on the part of Government/Competent Authority would infuse additional elements of locus standii in favour of Lokayukta.

4.2. An argument to the contrary of the above view, if accepted, would leave a wrong order of the Tribunal with impunity forever and the employee who has been found guilty of misconduct would go scathe free. That would not auger well to the Rule of Law, which requires protection of the innocent and punishing of the guilty. Otherwise, the interest of administration would be badly affected. Added, the Lokayukta is not a busy body; it is established as a statutory entity for playing a pivotal role in the prevention of maladministration. It functions as a watch dog of public administration in a Welfare State as ordained by the Constitution of India. It is not that in the every case wherein relief is accorded to a public servant, as matter of course, the Lokayukta will have locus standii. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of individual case brought before the Court.

4.3 A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hon’ble Lokayukta Vs. Shri Prakash T.V., 2021 SCC OnLine KAR 15733 has observed as under:

“52 The facts of the case reveal that though the State Government has entrusted the m