THE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ 3RD FLOOR, M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001.

THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH S.KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560050.

SRI NOMESH KUMAR S/O LATE B NARAYANA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH S. KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560070. R/AT NO.9/A, LAKSHMI NILAYA 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA HEBBALA, BENGALURU-560024.

SRI .T.K. RAMESH S/O LATE KARIHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYATH RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562159. R/AT NO.832, 3RD A CROSS ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560072.

SRI K C DEVARAJE GOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYATH MYSURU DISTRICT-570005. R/AT NO.120/B, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, BMC NAGARA, MYSURU-570016. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023

SRI P RANGASWAMY S/O LATE PARAMESHWARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SONNAPANAHALL GRAM PANCHAYATH JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU 562125 R/AT NO 6, 1ST MAIN,1ST CROSS TAVAREKERE BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU 560029.

SRI SUBRAMANYA S/O VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANDENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562125 R/AT NO 54, 18TH A CROSS BAGALAGUNTE, BENGALURU 560058. (BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY - AGA FOR RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2; SRI. RAJESWARA P N – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NOS.4159-4163/2021, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER This petition is filed by the Lokayukta challenging the common order dated 06.06.2022 rendered by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application Nos.4040 to 4045/2021 and batch of applications. However, the relief in this petition is restricted to the applications filed by Respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein in Application Nos. 4159 to 4163/2021, out of the above said batch of applications which were disposed of before the KSAT. The KSAT, by its order dated

06.06.2022, allowed all the applications filed by the applicants therein and thereby set-aside the impugned orders passed by the Government under Rule 14-A of KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957 dated 29.07.2021 and 02.08.2021. However, the KSAT had remitted the matters to the respondent / Government to consider the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Urban Zilla Panchayat / third respondent herein dated 02.11.2020 and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 then to take a decision on merits, in accordance with law. The said process was to be complied with within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Lokayukta seeking to quash the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the KSAT in Application Nos. 4159 to 4163/2021. Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Shri Ashwin S. Halady and Shri K. Prasanna Shetty are present before Court and represent the Lokayukta & Upalokayukta in the matter.

3. However, learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 has filed a memo dated 16.01.2024 seeking for dismissal of the writ petition. It is stated in the memo that pursuant to the order dated 06.06.2022 rendered by the KSAT and prior to the filing of the present petition, the Government has passed an order in GraAaPa 128 ViSeBi 2021 dated 03.10.2022, withdrawing the earlier Government Order bearing No.GraAaPa 81 ViSeBi - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 2020 dated 02.08.2021 passed under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, a copy of which is annexed to the memo.

4. Originally, applications were filed before the Upalokayukta, challenging the Government Order dated

02.08.2021. Now that the Government Order dated

02.08.2021 itself, on the basis of which the applications were filed before the KSAT having been withdrawn by the Government, it is stated that the present petition does not survive for consideration. In view of the fact that the Government itself has withdrawn its order dated

02.08.2021 entrusting the matter to the Upalokayukta for an enquiry, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. However, learned counsel Shri Ashwin S. Halady for petitioners / Upalokayukta and another, has filed his statement of objections dated 12.02.2024 to the memo of - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 dismissal filed by the learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 along with a verifying affidavit of Shri Amaranarayana K, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 & Chairman, Legal Cell-I & II, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru.

6. It is contended in the Statement of objections that the memo of dismissal filed by Respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not maintainable in law or on facts and the said memo is liable to be rejected. It is stated that the applicants before the KSAT had questioned the entrustment order dated

02.08.2021 in Application Nos. 4159 to 4163/2021 in respect of entrustment to conduct a departmental enquiry by the Upalokayukta. The KSAT had allowed all the applications and had set aside the impugned orders passed by the Government under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC& A) Rules, 1957 dated 29.07.2021 and 02.08.2021 and further remitted the matter to the respondent / Government to consider the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Urban Zilla Panchayath dated - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023

02.11.2020 and then to take a decision on merits in accordance with law.

7. The Upalokayukta through the Registrar, has challenged the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the KSAT before this Court in W.P.No.3684/2023 and other connected matters, which are pending consideration. It is stated that the Government order dated 02.08.2021 has become abandoned in view of quashing of the said order by the KSAT. When such is the position, it is contended by the learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti that the Government withdrawing its order dated

02.08.2021 by issuing a Government order dated

03.10.2022, does not arise and is absurd. Further, the said Government order dated 03.10.2022 is subject to the outcome of the present petition. In support of his case, learned counsel relies on the following citations: i) VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (W.P.No.104460/2018 C/w. W.P.Nos.104461/2018 & 104462/2018); - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 ii) SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS vs. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA ((2012) 11 SCC 565); iii) UNION OF INDIA & ANR vs. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA (2007 (1) SCT 452).

8. Relying on the above citations, learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti contends that in case they succeed in the petition, the Government order dated

03.10.2022 will become infructuous and the Government orders dated 02.08.2021 and 29.07.2021 would prevail. Hence, he vehemently opposes the memo for dismissal and prays to dismiss the memo filed by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6.

However, learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. vehemently opposes the statement of objection filed by the petitioners and submits that the question of absurdity, does not arise. He contends that the writ petitions do not survive for consideration and it does not require scanning of the impugned order passed by the KSAT. On these contentions, learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. seeks - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 to consider the memo for dismissal filed by Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and consequently dismiss the petition as does not survive for consideration.

Learned AGA Shri V. Shiva Reddy submits that the Government order dated 03.10.2022 has been issued by the competent authority / State after scrutinizing the entire material and hence, the question of absurdity in the order, does not arise. In view of the same, he submits that this writ petition initiated by the Lokayukta does not have any substance and consequently the relief sought for in the petition does not survive for consideration.

However, learned Spl PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti refers to Sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 apart from referring to Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957. Sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, reads thus:

12. (3) If, after investigation of any action involving an allegation has been made, the - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing within six months from the date of commencement of the investigation, communicate his findings and recommendations along with relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. [Provided that, the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may extend the said period by a further period of not exceeding six months for the reasons to be recorded in writing] (4) The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.

Further, Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957 reads thus: “14A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta, - - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No.

Learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti emphatically submits relating to Section 12(3) in respect of the documents, materials and evidence and the said provisions extracted above have to be taken consideration to dismiss the memo filed by respondents.. He also refers to the operative portion of the order - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 rendered by the KSAT and submits that even though memo has been filed producing the Government order issued by the Competent Authority / State dated

03.10.2022, it does not come in the way of considering the grounds urged in this writ petition initiated by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging the order rendered by the KSAT under Section 19 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. These are the submissions made by the learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti inclusive of referring to Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957.

Learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti in support of his submission, has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs. DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR AND OTHERS ((2011) 14 SCC 770)), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has extensively addressed the issues relating to Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary. He - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 particularly has referred to Paragraphs 107 to 111 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karavogam & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors.,(1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Titesh Tewari & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Ors.,(AIR 2010 SC 3823).

111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/ investigation automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est.”

But as far as this judgment is concerned, an FIR No.334/1991 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 437 and 120- - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh. In connection with an FIR dated

13.12.1991, one Balwant Singh Multani was arrested in respect of the case in FIR No.440 registered for offences under Sections 212 and 216 of the IPC, Sections 25/54/69 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act for short). These facts are indicated in the judgment facilitated by the learned Spl. PP Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti. Even though it is contended that paragraph nos.107 to 111 are squarely application to the present facts of the case, but Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to scanning of any order passed by the Tribunal which is initiated under Section 19 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act. Hence, the said reliance would not support the case of the petitioners.

Further, Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti on instructions, submits that the Government order was not - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 communicated to the Lokayukta till the filing of the memo by the respondents seeking for dismissal of the petitions. This submission of the learned Spl. PP in the presence of the learned counsel Shri Ashwin S. Halady inclusive of the learned counsel Shri K. Prasanna Shetty, is placed on record.

In the meanwhile, learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that the Government Order dated 03.10.2022, has already been communicated to the petitioners herein. This submission of the learned counsel is also supported by the learned counsel Shri Prakash M. Patil.

However, keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta, when the State has come forward to issue a Government order withdrawing the notification issued earlier, it is relevant to - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023 refer to Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India, which reads thus: 13 (3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

Hence, a Government Order issued by the Competent Authority / State, amounts to law under Article 13(3) (a) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, keeping in view the scope of the Government Order issued by the Competent Authority / State, even though learned counsel for the Lokayukta submits that the Government Order does not have force for consideration, the said submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:5956-DB WP No. 3219 of 2023

Though the counsel for the Lokayukta has filed detailed objection to the memo of dismissal filed by the learned counsel for the respective respondents along with a verifying affidavit, however, keeping in view the contentious contentions stoutly opposing the same by the learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. inclusive of the learned counsel Shri Prakash M Patil for the respective respondents, we are of the opinion that this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

Consequently, the memo for dismissal inclusive of the Government Order dated 03.10.2022 filed by the learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. for the respective respondents are taken on record and this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and as the same does not survive for consideration.