IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NOS.12752-12753 OF 2017 [S-KSAT] BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NITYANAND G. HITTALMAKKI, SON OF GOVINDARAYA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 334.
2. SRI. J. VASUDEVA, SON OF LATE JANNARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BANGALORE EAST, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT , ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-4, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.5763 & 5764 OF 2013 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.5763 & 5764 OF 2013.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that they were the Senior Motor vehicle inspectors posted to Zalaki RTO from 01.10.2012 onwards. When they were checking the vehicles passing through the checkposts on 26.10.2012, based on certain allegations against them, the Lokayukta registered a suo-moto case in Crime No.18 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A raid was conducted on the said RTO checkposts. A mahazar was drawn in the presence of the police Inspector. In terms of the mahazar, a sum of Rs.88,484/- has been recovered from the drawer of the applicants. The applicants were arrested along with others. Subsequently, the FIR was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.16079 of 2012, wherein it is presently submitted at the Bar, that by the Order dated 19.07.2016, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
2. Thereafter, the Karnataka Lokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry calling upon the Additional Registrar to enquire. A recommendation was made to the competent authorities by initiating departmental proceedings. They replied to the same. The Lokayukta in terms of Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act has submitted its report to the State. Based on the said report, the State has entrusted the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta to initiate joint departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, wherein a charge memo was issued to them. Questioning the same, applications were filed before the Tribunal. By the impugned Order, the applications were rejected. Hence, these petitions are filed.
3. Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is non-application of mind by the State. It is mandatory in terms of Section 12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act for an independent consideration and application of mind by the Government for concurring with the opinion of the Lokayukta. Hence, the entire proceedings should be set aside. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER VS.
H.N. NIRANJAN AND ANOTHER, reported in 2017(6) KAR, L.J.
80 (DB).
4. We have considered the order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal on considering various Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to therein dimissed the applications. It was of the view that the impugned order entrusting the matter to the Karnataka Upalokayukta to ensure joint departmental enquiry under Section 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or error of jurisdiction said that the Tribunal has committed an error. Hence, it does not call for any interference.
5. We have considered the orders passed by the respondent-State under Section 12(4) of the Act. We are of the view that there is proper application of mind by the State. The contention of the petitioners i.e., non-application of mind by the State therefore cannot be accepted. A reading of the same indicates application of mind. The State is not expected to write an exhaustive order. Application of mind is what is called for. Therefore the aforesaid judgment would be of no avail to the petitioner. Hence, this ground is unacceptable.
6. It is further contended that the FIR itself has been quashed. Therefore, the respondents cannot initiate proceedings against the applicants. The report under Section 12(3) of the Act was submitted on 05.06.2013. That the said report is much prior to the quashing of the proceedings by the High Court. Therefore, on this ground also, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc