IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54633 OF 2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O.VENKATACHALAIAH, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AT RAMANAGAR TALUK, AS TAHSILDAR, AT PRESENT, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
(BY MR.NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY IT’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE UPALOKAYUKTHA, STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
…PETITIONER 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-5, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
5. SMT LEELAVAHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE PRABHAKAR RAO, R/AT, NO.102, HARINIVAS APTS., 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, AVALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560026.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 MR.VEKATESH ARABATTI, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4 MR.D.S.HOSMATH, ADV. FOR R5 ABSENT) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:20.9.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Nagaraj Damodar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri.Venkatesh Arabatti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 20.09.2017.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Tahsildar of Ramanagara Taluk. The respondent No.5 had sought for grant of saguvali chit in respect of 2 acres of land forming part of Sy.No.68 of Bannikuppe Village which was granted to her husband namely Sri.Prabhakar along with his mother namely Neela Bai. The Tahsildar had issued an endorsement dated 22.07.2007 stating that saguvali chit cannot be issued in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved, respondent No.5 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.38594/2011 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 22.03.2013 with a direction to the petitioner herein to issue saguvali chit within a period of two months from the date of issuance of certified copy of the order.
5. Since there was a delay in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent No.5 initiated a contempt proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner during the pendency of the contempt proceeding issued a saguvali chit. Thereupon, the contempt proceeding was closed on 16.01.2014. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent No.5 filed a complaint to the Lokayuktha. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply in which he stated the facts under which the saguvali chit was issued in favour of respondent No.5. However, by an order dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner was informed that an enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, shall be held against the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has been served with the article of charges. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 had no authority to investigate the complaint in view of the bar contained in Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. It is further submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit objections before the enquiry officer with regard to the maintainability of the enquiry which has been initiated against him and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the same by a speaking order before proceeding further with the matter.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in case such an objection is preferred at the relevant stage, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits objections with regard to continuation of the departmental enquiry before the competent authority, the competent authority, before proceeding further with the matter, shall decide the objections preferred by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties by a speaking order in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE RV