Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K. SINGH, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Umakanth Bhat K., S/o. Late K. Devanna Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
D.K. SINGH, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been taken together as common facts are involved.
2. W.P.No.7432/2024 has been filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.3945/2022 filed by the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.22478/2025. By the said order, the Tribunal has allowed the application and has set aside the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta.
3. The necessary facts for the purpose of decision in these writ petitions briefly stated are that the respondent No.3 was working as Assistant Director of Economic Statistics and while he was working as Assistant Statistics Officer in the District Health and Family Welfare Office, a complaint was lodged by one Dr. Nagraj alleging that the wife of the complainant was practising in "Rakshitha Clinic", Bengaluru of Dr. Sumangala who had applied for renewal of registration for Ultrasound Scanning in Rakshita Clinic for the period from 02.12.2007 to 01.12.2
The court ruled that unexplained delays in disciplinary inquiries are unacceptable, emphasizing joint responsibility for timely proceedings.
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....
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
The standards of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings differ; acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action.
A party is entitled to a fair opportunity to contest disciplinary proceedings against them, particularly where their absence from earlier hearings is attributable to unavoidable circumstances.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
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
