IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3053 OF 2018 (S - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYA KUMAR N, SON OF LATE MANKU NAIK, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, MANGALURU – 575 001.
(BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, LALBAGH ROAD, MANGALURU – 575001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.31355/2018 ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, M. NAGAPRASANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant has called in question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2018 in W.P.No.31355/2018 whereby, the learned Single Judge has disposed the writ petition, in a challenge raised to the order of the entrustment of the departmental enquiry to the hands of the second respondent – Lokayuktha under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (“K.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules” for short).
2. Sans unnecessary details, the brief facts that would be germane are, one Purushotham, son of Sundar filed a complaint on 02.03.2016, before the second respondent – Lokayuktha against the appellant who is working as a Revenue Officer in the Mangaluru City Corporation. Based upon the complaint, the second respondent – Lokayuktha framed its report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘K.L.Act 1984’ for short) and communicated the same to the first respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant and to entrust the enquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta. The report of the Lokayukta was forwarded to the Government on 07.06.2017 and the same was further forwarded to the third respondent. On receipt of the report of the second respondent, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 31.08.2017 to which the appellant has replied on 12.09.2017. In consideration of the same, the first respondent - Government has entrusted the departmental enquiry to the hands of the second respondent – Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of K.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules. This is called in question by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in WP.No.31355/2018 and the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the impugned entrustment. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. The sole contention that is advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, after the receipt of the show cause notice enclosing the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of K.L.Act 1984, there is a recommendation made by the third respondent – Commissioner, Mangaluru City Corporation to the first respondent that there is no dereliction of duty by the health officer and the revenue officer (the appellant) and it is his contention that the Government while entrusting the matter to the hands of the Lokayukta has failed to consider this fact and has entrusted the matter without application of mind. The departmental enquiry against the appellant herein is yet to commence and at that stage of initiation of departmental enquiry, the interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and only on factors like, want of jurisdiction and mala fides interference is called for. Neither of the two are pleaded by the appellant.
5. It is always open to the appellant to place all the material available with him before the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry, which stage has not yet come about. The learned Single Judge has considered this very fact and has disposed the writ petition holding that there was no error in the order entrusting the enquiry to the hands of the second respondent - Lokayukta. It is trite law that the Constitutional Courts would be loathe to interfere at the stage of initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
6. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the impugned order of entrustment of the enquiry to the hands of the respondent No.2 – Lokayukta. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj