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.17226 OF 2018(S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI.ASHWIN.S.HALADY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI GANGAPPA S/O MARKANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TAHSILDAR, SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584128.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, ...PETITIONER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GIRISH.S.JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; 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.3943/2015 DATED: 02.11.2017 VIDE ANNEX-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The top noted writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta praying to quash the impugned order dated 02.11.2017 passed in Application No.3943/2015 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide Annexure-C, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed setting aside the order dated 03.01.2015 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently, quashing the Articles of Charge dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Lokayukta.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent No.1 was selected and appointed as Tahsildar Group-B on 23.05.2008. The respondent No.1 having served as Tahsildar at Manvi after his initial appointment was transferred to Gangavati, Koppal District where he served as Tahsildar between 09.04.2013 to 01.07.2014. A complaint was lodged by one Thippanna Arathi claiming to be the State General Secretary, Bahujan Samaj Party, Karnataka State to the petitioner-Lokayukta on 10.12.2005 much prior to the appointment of the respondent No.1 which was in the year 2008 alleging that in certain survey numbers measuring around 25 acres of patta land in absence of any conversion order, permissions were granted to run restaurants in patta land and on this count, there is several crores of revenue loss to the Government.
3. The petitioner-Lokayukta submitted report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the respondent No.2 on 14.11.2014 and 12(3) report submitted under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) pertain to the following allegations which is reproduced as under:
“i) Respondents no.1 to 15 have failed to perform their statutory duties under the Karnataka Forest Act and Karnataka Land Revenue Act to remove the encroachments;
ii) Though respondent no.4 has reported that boundary stones are not available to demarcate the reserve forest areas, but when the First Grade Surveyor was deputed to measure the forest land, without permitting to complete the work, he was asked to do the work relating to the CBI matter;
iii) Though respondents stated that writ petitions are pending and action will be taken after their disposal, no proper action has been taken so far to remove the encroachments inspite of the dismissal of petitions in April 2013;
iv) Respondents have not got the encroachment removed by not taking action in that direction on one ground or the other.”
4. The Government having received the report from the Lokayukta under 12(3) of the Act, has proceeded to entrust departmental inquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 against the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the Articles of Charge dated 16.02.2015 and the impugned order dated 03.01.2015 entrusting departmental inquiry, filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.3943/2015. The grievance of the applicant/respondent No.1 herein before the Tribunal was that the Government has not at all examined the material on record and has not taken note of the material fact that he was in fact appointed on 23.05.2008, whereas the complaint is dated 10.12.2005 much prior to his appointment. The respondent No.1 also questioned the validity of the impugned charge memo by contending that it is nothing but replica of the report of Lokayukta submitted under Section 12(3). The respondent No.1 also specifically contended before the Tribunal that the Government has recommended inquiry against all the Tahsildars who have served between 2015 till the present day and a specific contention is taken that there is absolutely no specific material indicating the role played by the respondent No.1 towards loss of revenue to the Government.
5. The Tribunal having examined the material on record and having taken note of the order passed in Application No.4952/2015 and connected cases which were disposed of on 16.10.2017, was of the view that the matter needs to be examined afresh by the Government and accordingly, proceeded to allow the application by setting aside the impugned order bearing No.RD 116 ADE 2014 dated 03.01.2015 passed by respondent No.2.
6. The petitioner being an Authority is before this Court questioning the order of the Tribunal. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine the report submitted by the petitioner – Authority under Section 12(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before us that mere entrustment of inquiry pursuant to receipt of report by the Lokayukta under 12(3) cannot be challenged by respondent No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue and contend that even Articles of Charge also could not have been challenged before the Tribunal. On these set of grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
8. We have meticulously examined the reasons assigned by the Tribunal at paragraphs 9 and 10. The Tribunal relying on the orders passed in Application No.4952/2015 and connected cases which were disposed on 16.10.2017 arising out of same cause of action has proceeded to allow the present application which is the subject matter of writ petition. Since the charges levelled against the respondent No.1 and the other Tahsildars which were subject matter of the above said application were disposed of on 16.10.2017, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter needs to be examined afresh by the Government to pass appropriate orders. On perusal of para 10 of the order of the Tribunal under challenge, it is clearly evident that the Tribunal has opined that is open for the Government to initiate departmental inquiry on re-examination of materials and if the material warrants entrustment of departmental inquiry, it is open for the Government. With these observations, the applications are allowed. The Tribunal has also issued a specific direction to the Government that the material placed on record are to be examined keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bakthawar Singh reported in AIR 1972 SC 2083 and also the judgment of this Court reported in H.N.Niranjan vs. State of Karnataka decided on 27.11.2014 in Application No.725/2014.
9. On examining the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities and as such, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the Government to re-examine the matter afresh would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner Authority.
In that background, we are of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Authority is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA