IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOS.26793-26795 OF 2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
1. J. SHIVAPRAKASH SON OF JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOLAR AND RESIDING AT NO.492 JAYANAGAR I CROSS KOLAR - 563 101.
2. NAZEER AHMED SON OF LATE GULAM HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICE MANAGER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR AND RESIDING AT MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT NO.3551, HYDERI NAGAR MULBAGAL - 563 131.
3. VENKATARAMANA SON OF KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR AND RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS PALASANDRA LAYOUT, (KVM SWAMY LAYOUT) KOLAR - 563 101.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI:M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (MUDA) URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M. S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
3. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYA TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: S.H.PRASHANTH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-3; SRI:MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS; QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 21.02.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, IRRATIONAL AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC., ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that, they were working in the City Municipal Council (for short ‘CMC’), Kolar. One Sri.K.V.Manjunath, filed a complaint with the second respondent complaining that the former Commissioner of CMC, Kolar and 7 others have committed irregularities in purchasing computers, sewing machines and multi gym materials during the period between 2007-2008 and 2011- 2012. A complaint was registered. Investigation was handed over to the Chief Engineer of the Technical and Audit Division of Hon’ble Lokayukta. Investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer on hearing the explanations, submitted a report to the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioners. Their replies were considered. On considering the same, the second respondent, Lokayukta, forwarded his recommendation as provided under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and made a recommendation for initiation of disciplinary action against them. Questioning the same, the instant petitions are filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the report furnished by the Lokayuktha in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act, is erroneous. That there is no material against the petitioners. Therefore, the recommendation requires to be set aside.
3. The same is disputed by the learned Counsel for Lokayukta.
4. On hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in these petitions. What is sought to be challenged herein is the recommendation being made by Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act. The report furnished by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act shall always remain as a recommendation. Such a recommendation is subject to further orders by the Competent Authority within its jurisdiction. It is the duty of the Competent Authority to accept or reject the recommendation and proceed further in the manner known to law. Therefore, interference at this stage to quash the recommendation, in our considered view, is inappropriate.
Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-