Charge of misconduct not substantiated as prior permissions were obtained by the petitioner's wife for the car purchase and loan.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the Inquiry Report No.Up-Lok- 2/DE/68/2021/ARE-3 submitted by the Respondent-

Registrar Enquiries-3, Office of Lokayukta (Annexure J). The petitioner has also challenged the recommendation of the Upalokayukta-2 dated 10.10.2022, (Annexure-K) and the impugned Government Order dated 27.02. 2023 issued by the Government, respondent No.1 (Annexure-

M).

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Incharge Revenue Inspector in the Office of City Municipal Corporation, KGF Kolar District, one Sri K. S. Saranathan of KGF lodged a complaint against petitioner and others, in the Office of Karnataka Lokayukta. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner would demand a bribe for change of khata etc., and out of the bribe money, he had purchased a vehicle worth Rs.18,00,000/-.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Kolar, conducted the investigation on the complaint and submitted his report dated 17.11.2018. The Investigating Officer i.e., S.P, Karnataka Lokayukta in his report dated 17.11.2018 stated that there was no material to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.

4. As the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Kolar did not conduct any investigation regarding the allegation of purchase of the car by the petitioner worth Rs. 18,00,000/-, the Upalokayukta, respondent No.2 again directed the S.P, Kolar to conduct the investigation in respect of the purchase of the car by the petitioner allegedly for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. As per the direction of the Upalokayukta, Superintendent of Police conducted the further investigation and submitted the final scrutiny report dated 19.09.2020. In the report, it was stated that the value of the car purchased by the petitioner was Rs.7,10,000/-. The petitioner did not produce any document for having taken permission to purchase the car from the competent authority. It was further recorded in the final scrutiny report that the petitioner had not obtained the prior permission from the competent authority for raising the loan.

5. In view of the aforesaid scrutiny report, the respondent No. 2, Upalokayukta submitted the report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta to the Government recommending for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. The State Government accorded permission under Section 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals), Rules, 1957, for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the Lokayukta.

6. In pursuance to the entrustment order under Section 14-A, the enquiry officer, the Additional Registrar - Enquiries-3 issued articles of charge dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure-A) against the Petitioner. In sum and substance, the charge was that the petitioner had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority for purchase of the car and he had not obtained prior permission of the competent authority for raising loans from the Bank and also he had not intimated the competent authority about purchase of LIC policies. Therefore, the petitioner had acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, as provided under Rule 3 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1966.

7. The petitioner submitted his defence statement. During the enquiry, the Discipline Authority examined the two witnesses, PW-1- the complainant and PW-2 - the investigating officer. Th