IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.12624 OF 2018(S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRIES-8), KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ASHWIN.S.HALADY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI E.D.BHRUNGI S/O. DODDAPPA, AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED TAHASILDAR, R/AT PARVATHI NILAYA, CLUB ROAD, OPP. SVEM HIGH SCHOOL, KOPPAL-577126 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHILPA.S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R2) 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.4955/2015 DTD:03.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent No.1 herein filed original application in No.4997/2015 seeking quashing of the order dated 3.1.2015 passed by the second respondent herein and also the order dated 16.2.2015 passed by the second petitioner herein.
2. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal (1st respondent herein) was that he was working as Tahsildar in the Revenue Department. Based on the complaint lodged by one Thippanna Arathi, State General Secretary, Bahujan Samaj Party, Bengaluru, before first petitioner-Lokayukta, alleging that the officials of the forest and revenue department have failed to evict the encroachers over the Government land and have colluded with the encroachers for construction of restaurants etc. petitioner No.1 submitted a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the second respondent herein on 14.11.2014 holding that 15 officials were responsible for not taking action against the illegal encroachers on the Government land and were also responsible for allowing to run the restaurants by private persons unauthorisedly.
3. Pursuant to the said recommendations the second respondent herein entrusted the matter to the first petitioner to hold enquiry under Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR’s vide order dated 3.1.2015. Thereafter, the first petitioner nominated the second petitioner namely Additional Registrar of Enquiries-8 as an Enquiry Officer to frame charges against the applicant(1st respondent herein) and others. Accordingly, on 16.2.2015 the second petitioner framed the article of charges. Being aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred original application.
4. The grievance of respondent No.1-applicant was that the alleged incident relates to the year 2005 whereas the applicant retired on 31.3.2013. Therefore, it was specifically contended that as on the date of initiation of enquiry vide charge memo dated 16.2.2015, the applicant was no more a government servant and therefore Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 is not applicable. The 1st respondent/applicant also specifically contended that the entrustment order under Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR’s,1958, is also not maintainable in law.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for 1st respondent before the Tribunal (2nd respondent herein) opposed the application on the ground that Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR is applicable to the facts of the case. The said submission was also adopted by the counsel appearing for petitioners 1 and 2 herein.
6. The Tribunal having perused the records and pleadings confined itself to the controversy in regard to the competency of the State Government in entrusting the matter to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. The Tribunal having taken note of the date of retirement of the 1st respondent/applicant was of the view that the respondent No.1 applicant was no more a government servant. Since the applicant was no more a a government servant as on the date the entrustment order was passed on 03.01.2015, Rule 41-A of KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 is not applicable to the facts. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was of the view that the Lokayuktha does not get any power to hold a departmental enquiry even if the Government has passed the order of entrustment and accordingly, held that the order of entrustment of department enquiry by the Government to Upalokayuktha is bad in law. However, the Tribunal while allowing the application reserved liberty to the second respondent herein to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal have filed the top noted writ petition.
8. The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently argue that the Tribunal has not at all examined the statement of objections filed by the second respondent-State. If the order under challenge is not set aside, the other officials who are similarly placed would take benefit of the order of the Tribunal by resorting to remedy before the Tribunal.
9. The above contention raised by the petitioners has no legal basis and the same cannot be considered by this Court. The finding of the Tribunal that the entrustment of enquiry was subsequent to retirement of the applicant does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 14(A) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and also Rule 214 (2)(b) of KCSRs. The order under challenge also does not warrant any interference since the Tribunal has reserved liberty to the second respondent-State to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
10. The Tribunal has passed the judgment on 3.10.2017. When enquired with the learned HCGP appearing for 2nd respondent as to what action has been taken against 1st respondent-applicant pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the learned HCGP would submit that the second respondent-State is contemplating to take action against those applicants against whom the entrustment of enquiry was submitted post retirement. This Court is of the view that on account of superannuation if the petitioners cannot proceed with the enquiry that would not come in the way of the second respondent-State in taking appropriate action as per Rule 214 2(b)(i) of KCSR. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent -State is directed to take appropriate action in terms of Rule 214 2(b) of KCSRs against the first respondent/applicant.
11. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-