Pre-Appointment Misconduct Falls Within Lokayukta's Jurisdiction for Public Servants Under Section 2(12) of the Lokayukta Act: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-06

Karnataka High Court Upholds Lokayukta's Power to Probe Pre-Appointment Misconduct

Dharwad, Karnataka - The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has delivered a significant ruling affirming the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Lokayukta to investigate alleged malpractices committed by a candidate during a recruitment process, even if the acts occurred before they officially became a public servant. The decision came in the case of Dadpeer Bhanuvalli vs. State of Karnataka , where the petitioner challenged a departmental enquiry initiated against him for alleged irregularities in the 2012 selection process for Assistant Public Prosecutors (APP).

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Lokayukta's authority extends to individuals who are currently public servants, for actions undertaken as candidates before their appointment.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dadpeer Bhanuvalli, was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader on June 17, 2014, following a recruitment notification issued in 2012. His probation was declared satisfactory in October 2016.

However, a subsequent investigation by the Lokayukta police into the recruitment process led to an FIR, where Mr. Bhanuvalli was named as Accused No. 49. It was alleged that he was involved in malpractice, including manipulating answer scripts, to secure the appointment. Based on a report from the Lokayukta, the State Government entrusted the matter for a departmental enquiry under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, leading to the issuance of articles of charge against the petitioner.

Mr. Bhanuvalli challenged this action before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which dismissed his application. He then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Core Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contention: The primary argument advanced by the petitioner was that the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction to investigate acts committed before he became a public servant. He contended that the alleged misconduct pertained to his status as a candidate during the recruitment process, not as a serving government employee. The petitioner relied on the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Iliyas , where a coordinate bench had previously held that grievances arising during recruitment were beyond the scope of the Lokayukta Act.

Respondents' Contention: The State and the Lokayukta argued that the matter was already settled by a prior Division Bench ruling in Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil Vs State of Karnataka . This case, which dealt with the same 2012 recruitment process, had explicitly held that the Lokayukta was empowered to investigate such matters. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, solidifying its precedent value.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The High Court meticulously examined the relevant legal framework, including the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

Definition of 'Public Servant': The court highlighted Section 2(12) of the Lokayukta Act , which defines a "public servant" as a person "who is or was at any time" a Government Servant. The Bench reasoned that since the petitioner was a public servant at the time the proceedings were initiated, he fell squarely within this definition.

Misconduct as a 'Candidate': Crucially, the court pointed to Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977 , which specifically addresses "misconduct" by a "candidate." This rule allows for disciplinary action and criminal prosecution against a candidate found guilty of using improper means during recruitment.

The Bench quoted its own precedent in the Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil case, stating:

“Having regard to the words ‘who is or was at any time’ as enumerated in Section 2(12) of the Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners would certainly come within the ambit of public servant... Hence, applying Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 which employs the phrase ‘candidates’ and public servant as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, it can be held that the petitioners not holding the public office as on the date of the alleged misconduct, would not disentitle the Upalokayukta to initiate investigation proceedings against them.”

The court distinguished the M. Iliyas case relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it arose from a different factual context and did not consider the interplay between Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules and the Lokayukta Act.

Final Decision and Implications

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court concluded that the precedent set in the Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil case, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, was directly applicable. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the integrity of the recruitment process is paramount and that individuals who secure public employment through fraudulent means cannot escape scrutiny by claiming the misconduct occurred before their appointment. It serves as a clear message that accountability for public servants extends to their actions even as candidates for public office.