Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K.SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T.
N.G.Chennigaraya, S/o Late Gendappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
D K SINGH, J.
1. All these three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner since retired was working as a District Manager, the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited (for short 'KMDCL')-respondent No.2. The challenge in these writ petitions is regarding entrusting the enquiry to Lokayukta, and thereafter, the enquiry report and consequential punishment order inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of Lokayukta.
2. As per the Punishment Order dated 30.12.2022, Lokayukta has recommended for withholding of 10% of pension payable to the petitioner for a period of five years and also to recover the sum of Rs.36,170/- from the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. The Competent Authority i.e., respondent No.2, the Managing Director of the KMDCL has accepted the recommendation and imposed the penalty as recommended by the Lokayukta vide order dated 15.11.2023.
3. Initially, the Corporation itself proceeded against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and submitted the report (vide Annexure-C). The enquiry
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 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 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.
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.
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 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....
The court affirmed departmental enquiry legitimacy despite concurrent civil proceedings, emphasizing distinct legal processes for addressing misconduct under statutory rules.
The court upheld the Lokayukta's jurisdiction to investigate recruitment irregularities, clarifying that previous actions can impact public servants under statutory provisions.
The court ruled that unexplained delays in disciplinary inquiries are unacceptable, emphasizing joint responsibility for timely proceedings.
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
