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.

ORDER :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner, Dr. Sreenivas Jayaram, seeking to quash the report dated 3-3-2025 submitted by respondent No.2- Lokayukta under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act').

2. Writ Petition No.21867 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner, Dr. R. Keshavamurthy, seeking to quash the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 issued by respondent- No.2-Governing Council and to quash the report dated 3-3-2025 submitted by respondent No.3-Lokayukta under Section 12 (3) of the Act.

3. One Dr. Sujatha Siddappa filed a complaint dated 5-7-2021 with the Lokayukta against the petitioner(s) and other teaching faculties alleging that they are into private practice during their duty hours. On investigation, the Lokayukta submitted the report dated 3-3-2025. Thus, the disciplinary authority has issued show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 to the petitioner(s). The petitioner(s) have sought quashing of both the investigation report/recommendation dated 3-3-2025 as well as the show-cause notice dated 9-7-2025 issued by the Governing Council.

4. Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.23630 of 2025, contended that the Lokayukta does not have any jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations made by the complainant as there is a specific bar under Section 8 of the Act. Further, if the complainant had any grievance against the petitioner and others, she would have availed the alternative remedy by filing a complaint to the Disciplinary Authority straightaway without approaching the Lokayukta. The Disciplinary Authority could have taken cognizance of her complaint or grievance independently. It is for this reason, the legislature has imposed a specific bar on the Lokayukta to investigate into the action taken in respect of, and in relation to the service conditions, including discipline, as these are subject matters which fall within the domain of the employer, more so, when the allegations made by the complainant does not fall within the ambit of Section 2 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as, she has not raised any grievance within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Act. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to quash the report of the Lokayukta.

5. Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21867 of 2025, vehemently contended that the Lokayukta report is with regard to the disciplinary proceedings, for which, Section 8 of the Act, creates a bar to conduct investigation and to submit the report. Hence, the report of the Lokayukta is illegal and contrary to the statute as well as without jurisdiction. Based on such report, any proceedings initiated by the Governing Council or any other authority, are not sustainable in law. The allegations mentioned in the report of the Lokayukta as well as the show-cause notice are not having any basis, or supported with any material particulars. Ever since from the date of appointment of the petitioner as a Doctor and later, as a Professor and HOD, he is discharging his duties sincerely with professional commitment and absolutely, there is no complaint either from the patients, or in the administration side against the petitioner from any corner, and there is no black mark. However, the Lokayukta submitted the report without any basis and documentary evidence. In fact, it is the stand of the petitioner that, no patients or their caretakers filed any complaint against the petitioner or any other Doctors regarding deficiency of his services. The complainant has not submitted any documents before the Lokayukta to substantiate such irregularities in the written complaint, or filed any