IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.52803 OF 2018(S-DE) Between:
Sri. N.B. Seetharamu, Asst. Executive Engineer (Rtd.,) S/o. Sri. N.T. Bandaiah, Aged about 61 years, R/o. #177, Sri.Ranga Krupa, 6th Main, 2nd Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. ... Petitioner (By Smt. Kanthamani N.E., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by it’s Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, 4th Floor, Vikasa Souda, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta, Represented by its Registrar, M.S.Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Additional registrar of Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Smt. Amrutha Sai, Asst. Engineer, Ward No.123, Vijayanagar, Presently working as Asst. Executive Engineer, Now AEE, Rajajinagar Sub Din.BBMP, Bengaluru – 560 072.
5. Smt. Dr. Nagamani .N. Aged about 55 years, W/o. Dr. Natarajan, R/o. No.632/95, 7th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Respondents (By Sri. Kiran Kumar T.L, AGA for R1, Sri.Mohammed Arif Khan Makki for Venkatesh S. Arbatti, Advocate for R2 & R3) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the article of charges dated 22.04.2017 passed by R3 vide Annexure-G now proceeding before R3 issued in pursuance of Annexure-F the Government Order and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineering in Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. The petitioner received an information through RTI that an illegal construction was in progress at one of the sites falling within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. On noticing the fact that an illegal construction was under progress, the petitioner issued notice to the defaulter and warned that if the offending portion is not removed, action will be initiated in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner was thereafter transferred to another division in BBMP. A complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by respondent No.5, before the Karnataka Lokayukta. When the Upalokayukta issued notice to the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have caused a reply. Thereafter, the petitioner was once again transferred to another Jurisdiction within the BBMP limits. Thereafter Government Order has been passed entrusting the enquiry against the petitioner to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Karnataka Upalokayukta-respondent No.3 herein issued Article of Charges against the petitioner on 22.04.2017 to conduct departmental enquiry under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (hereinafter referred as “Act” for short). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Sri. Mohammad Arif Khan Makki appearing on behalf of Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, brings to the notice of this Court, a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.SUBHINDRA A.GUMASTE V/S. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.15060-15062/2016, which was disposed of on 30.03.2016. In these batch matters, the petitioners had also not challenged the order of the Hon’ble Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, recommending initiation of enquiry and it is only after the Government directed for initiation of enquiry based on the report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act and when the charge sheet was served on the petitioner, the action was challenged before the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal had rejected the application and the petitioner therein had not only challenged the order passed by the Tribunal, but also questioned the order passed by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the contention against the order of Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act cannot be entertained in a petition arising from the order of the Tribunal since before the Tribunal neither the challenge was made against the order of Lokayukta under Section 12(3) nor could it be entertained by the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that in this writ petition too, the petitioner has neither questioned the order passed by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act nor the order of entrustment passed by the Government under Rule 14(A) of the Rules. The petitioner is only seeking direction quashing the Article of Charges and therefore same is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.15060-15062/2016 (Supra).
4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and liberty may be granted to question the order passed by the respondent-Government under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules and the Hon’ble Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act.
5. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
KTY.
SD/- JUDGE