IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.5302 OF 2014 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SHRI C. ANANTHA RAMU SON OF SHRI NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY V. BAJANTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE HON’BLE UPA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDAKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. SHRI B. NANJAPPA AGED MAJOR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (THE THEN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), TECHNICAL WING, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ANITHA N. HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER R-1;
SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.5107 OF 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER It is the case of the petitioner is that he was earlier working as a Superintending Engineer in the Zilla Panchayath Engineering Division, Udupi. A complaint was made against him that the works executed by him are not satisfactory. The complaint was referred to the Lokayukta. Thereafter, the Lokayukta directed the Upa-Lokayukta to investigate the matter. Investigation was taken up. In pursuance to the same, a report was submitted under Section-12(3) of the Lokayukta Act (‘Act’ for short). Disciplinary proceedings were entrusted to the Upa- Lokayukta and the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-III, was appointed to enquire into the allegations.
2. Aggrieved by the report of the Lokayukta under Section-12(3) of the Act and against the charges alleged, the petitioner filed Application No.3596 of 2006, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. By the order dated 30.08.2010, the report under Section–12(3) and the articles of charges were quashed. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-Lokayukta to nominate an Enquiring Officer, in furtherance to the order of the Government to conduct an enquiry.
3. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking for an explanation. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.5107 of 2011. By the order dated 23.01.2014, the application was dismissed. Hence, the instant writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. That once an article of charge and the report under Section-12(3) has been quashed, proceedings thereafter cannot be initiated.
5. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner – respondents.
6. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The Tribunal while considering the contentions put forth, took note of the earlier order dated 30.08.2010, passed in Application Nos.3596 of 2006 and connected matters. We have considered the directions passed in the aforesaid order. The Tribunal while allowing the applications the recommendations under Section-12(3) of the Act, as well as the articles of charge were set-aside. However, liberty was granted for nomination of the Enquiring Officer in pursuance of the Government order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that once an article-of-charge and the report under Section-12(3) has been quashed, nothing further survives for consideration. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. The investigation report dated 21.07.2003, which led to the report under Section-12(3) has not been quashed. Therefore, what was set-aside was the manner and the procedure adopted in issuing the report under Section-12(3) of the Act. The investigation report continues to sustain. Therefore, the respondents in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal, were at liberty to nominate an Enquiring Officer and proceed further. That is exactly what the respondent- Lokayukta has done. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ