Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary authority under cca rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's error in authority competence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government's acceptance of tribunal's order. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. enquiry authority delineation under cca rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. government's authority to impose penalties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. non-challenge of tribunal's order by the government. (Para 15) |
| 7. responsibility of lokayukta as a government entity. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 18) |
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 O
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....
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
