Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.202498 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI VEERABHADRAPPA A S/O ALLI LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MUKKUNDA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 583 128.
R/AT NATRAJ COLONY, NEAR GLORY SCHOOL, SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 128.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANT B. WAJANTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT, RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUIDLING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY- 6, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 101. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DITRICT – 584 128.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION NO.20254/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF O
Tribunal cannot modify disciplinary penalty unless proven disproportionate, and delegation of enquiry by Lokayukta to designated officer satisfies procedural requirements under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Sections 12(3), Rules 7(2) and 9(3) - Disciplinary proceedings - Delegation of enquiry by Lokayukta to Assistant Registrar valid - Disciplinary authority empowered to impose independent penalty - Penalty not disproportionate to proved charges - Tribunal correctly dismissed appeal on procedural compliance and evidence. (Paras 6,9,11)
(B) Appeal against administrative tribunal order - Scope of appellate review - Court cannot interfere unless penalty is perverse, illegal, or disproportionate - Tribunal's conclusion based on evidence recorded cannot be substituted. (Paras 6,9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (Panchayat Development Officer) was charged with misappropriation of funds for textbook purchase and issuing cheques to an unrelated person (Sugurappa, son-in-law of Gram Panchayat President). Lokayukta initiated enquiry via Assistant Registrar, framing charges, and imposing penalty (recovery of Rs.80,196/- and withholding promotion). Tribunal dismissed appeal, holding penalty proportionate and proceedings valid. Writ petition challenged Tribunal's order.
Findings of Court:
Appellate court upheld Tribunal's finding that Lokayukta's delegation of inquiry was legally valid and the penalty was proportionate to proved misappropriation of funds. Procedure followed, including complaint issuance and enquiry, was adhered to.
Issues: (1) Whether Lokayukta complied with procedural requirements (Rules 7(2)/9(3)) to initiate proceedings? (2) Whether Tribunal erred in declining to find penalty disproportionate to proved charges?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Lokayukta's delegation to Assistant Registrar satisfies statutory requirements. Tribunal's evaluation of evidence and penalty proportionality was correct; appellate court must not substitute its view unless penalty is demonstrably disproportionate.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.20254/2022 dated 14.06.2024 wherein the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority has to take independent decision. Respondent No.1 passed the penalty order after issuance of the second show cause notice making available the copy of the enquiry report after securing the explanation from the applicant and after considering the materials placed before it. The Tribunal further comes to the conclusion that it cannot direct the disciplinary authority to impose a particular penalty and cannot modify the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, unless such penalty is found disproportionate to the proved charges. Hence, dismissed the application as the petitioner has not made out any grounds.
3. Now the counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Tribunal committed an error in not considering the report as it is very clear that only payment of Rs.34,000/- was made. The counsel would also vehemently contend that the Tribunal not considered the material available on record in proper perspective. The counsel would vehemently contend that in absence of any complaint against the petitioner, the proceedings initiated is deemed to have been under Rule 7(2) and 9(3), wherein it is mandatory for respondent No.2-Lokayukta to furnish a “written opinion” to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The said provision has not been complied with while initiating the proceedings.
4. The counsel would also contend that the allegation of the complainant relates to issue of cheque for Rs.34,000/- in the name of Sugurappa and irregularities in execution of work under 13th Financial Scheme for Rs.1,65,250/-. During investigation by the technical wing, it has come on record that there has no irregularities in execution of work and all these factors were not taken note of by the Tribunal, while dismissing the application.
5. It is also contended that in Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 report it was wrongly stated that the petitioner was involved in issue of two cheques for Rs.46,196/- and Rs.34,000/-. In fact, the bill was produced at Annexure-A2, the total bill amount was Rs.46,196/- of which the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.34,000/- in the name of Sugurappa and the balance amount was issued by his predecessor – Suryanaranarao and hence, the decision of the Tribunal without considering all these materials is erroneous.
6. The counsel appearing for the respondents/ State would submits that the Tribunal while considering the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.10 taken note of the material and Uplokayukta is being an authority who has to hold an enquiry either himself or through his officers by delegating its powers. Accordingly, Assistant Registrar of Enquiries-7 conducted enquiry and submitted the report. In terms of the report, it is very clear that the cheques issued are two in number with regard to the first charge as well as the second charge. It also comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal cannot direct the disciplinary authority to impose a particular penalty and cannot modify the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, unless such penalty is found disproportionate to the proved charges. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents/State and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there are specific charges against the petitioner, since a complaint was given by one Sharanappa before Lokayukta against one Pampangouda, who is the President of Gram Panchayat and also one Suryanarayan, PDO complaining that there is
