A contractual employee is not considered a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the registration of FIRs must be grounded in adequate legal basis without necessitating preliminary inquiries in certain circumstances.

ORDER :

S Rachaiah, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR in Crime No.11/2023 dated 03.12.2023 registered by the respondent No.1 – Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) (for short ‘PC Act’).

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the office of the Comptroller of the University on contract basis, for a period of 179 days. After the expiry of the contract period, the petitioner was re-appointed on contract basis for every 179 days by the University.

3. It is submitted that since the university was understaffed and in order to regulate the menial works of the University, on 31.03.2022, the University called for 126 service personnel on minimum basic pay (contractual basis) against the sanctioned vacant posts in the University, for a further period of 179 days with effect from 30.03.2022 to 24.09.2022. The petitioner was selected under the head of “University General Administration” for the post of Assistant. Things stood thus, after the lapse of more than a year from the date of termination of the contract of the petitioner’s employment with the University, it is stated that, based on the alleged source report dated 09.10.2023 said to have been submitted by the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 - Karnataka Lokayukta, Bidar, registered FIR against the petitioner for the offences stated supra. According to the said report, it is said that the petitioner / contractual employee, who has been appointed on a contractual basis, had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,66,10,000/- (237.2%) disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and also that of his family. Therefore, initiation of action against the said petitioner was made by the respondent - police.

4. Heard Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gourish S. Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the initiation of criminal case, especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the contract employee is not amenable under the law as he was not considered as a public servant. He was an outsourced contractual employee. He worked as an Assistant without discharging any public duty and he was terminated from service vide its order dated 09.09.2022 by the University more than a year ago and does not come within the purview of the definition “public servant” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act, 1988 and also under Section 21 of IPC, 1860. Such being the fact, registration of the case against such a contractual employee stating that he had amassed disproportionate assets, as stated supra, is highly illegal and erroneous.

6. It is further stated that Section 17 (2) of the PC Act mandates an order from an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police for investigation of offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(b) of PC Act. Section 13 (1)(b) stipulates that an order of police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and further it is held that the application of mind is required to depute the person to conduct investigation in such a matter.

7. It is further submitted that the preliminary enquiry is essential before registration of FIR and the same is mandatory as per