IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G.PANDIT, T.M.NADAF
Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, rep. By Its Secretary, Department of Agriculture – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.G. PANDIT, J.)
The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 26.04.2019 in Application No.1892/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’), whereunder the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the third respondent, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture with liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on the recommendation dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-A10) of the Upa-Lokayukta and to pass orders in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the second respondent-State Government under Government Order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) entrusted the enquiry against respondent No.3 to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). In terms of the said entrustment order, the Enquiry Officer nominated by the Upa-Lokayukta issued articles of charge dated 25.08.2010 and after detailed enquiry, enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta was submitted to the State Government. The third respondent bein
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.
The government has the authority to refer corruption cases for investigation by the Lokayukta even if departmental inquiries are in progress, ensuring comprehensive enforcement of anti-corruption law....
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated without prima facie evidence of misconduct, as established by the Tribunal's ruling that the entrustment order lacked sufficient material.
Disciplinary authority cannot initiate a second inquiry after an initial report exonerates an employee, as per Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules.
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 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 main legal point established is that the competent authority must apply its mind before entrusting an enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, and the petitioner's opportunity to def....
The court upheld the Lokayukta's jurisdiction to investigate recruitment irregularities, clarifying that previous actions can impact public servants under statutory provisions.
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 has no jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the disciplinary actions of public servants as stipulated in Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.