IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.11379 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-10 AND INQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI H. SHIVAKUMAR SON OF D. V. HUCCHAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEMAVATHY CANAL CIRCLE, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, TURUVEKERE – 572 227, RESIDENT OF SRI VEERABADRA SWAMY NILAYA, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, JAYANAGARA EAST, TUMAKURU – 572 103.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI S. K. ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1400 OF 2017 DATED 17.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The 1st respondent while he was working as an Executive Engineer, Hemavathy Canal Circle, Tumakuru, an investigation was taken up by the Karnataka Upalokayukta on a complaint filed by one Sri Puttasomaiah of Morganahalli in Koratagere Taluk against the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division and the Tahasildar, Koratagere pertaining to the submersion of the complainant’s land. Based on the same, information was called for from the respondent and the Tahsildar. The allegation was that a false information was given by the respondent with regard to the complainant’s two acres of land which had been sub-merged in the Teetha Dam, whereas the material would indicate that 2 acres of land of the complainant situated at Teetha Dam was not at all sub-merged. The Upalokayukta submitted a report to the State recommending a departmental enquiry against the complainant. Thereafter, the State entrusted the enquiry against the complainant to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, (for short ‘KCS(CCA) Rules’) and an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted holding that the charges against him are proved. A punishment was imposed withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Questioning the same, the instant application was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application and set aside the impugned order therein. Questioning the same, the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal has filed this petition.
2. Sri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that when once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the competent authority has not performed its duty under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the question of setting aside the impugned order alone is not sufficient. The matter requires to be remanded to ensure compliance under Section 12(4) of the Act. The same is disputed by the respondent’s counsel. He contends that when there is non-application of mind, necessarily, the impugned order requires to be set aside. Even on merits, no interference is called for.
3. Heard learned counsels. The Tribunal in the course of its order recorded a finding that there is no application of mind or examination of the report sent by the Upalokayukta in terms of Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Secondly, the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the reply furnished by the applicant and in the absence of the same the impugned order would be unsustainable. So far as these two issues are concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in only quashing the impugned order therein having come to the conclusion that there is non-application of mind with reference to Section 12(4) of the Act and also that the reply furnished by the applicant to the second show cause notice has not even been considered by the authority. The appropriate course for the Tribunal was to direct the concerned authority to comply with the mandate of law. However, what the Tribunal has done is to quash the impugned order alone. This we find is an error committed by the Tribunal. The application of mind as mandated under Section 12(4) of the Act requires to be complied with. The authorities are also liable to consider the reply furnished by the applicant before confirming the orders of punishment. Hence, the following:
ORDER While confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal, a further direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the report of the Lokayukta as mandated under Section 12(4) of the Act and also the reply furnished to the second show-cause notice by the applicant and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE RSK/-