KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA v. PREMAKUMARI

Judgment

2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRES-3) KLA, M.S. BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001. (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONERS

2. SRI H M SIDDALINGAMURTHY S/O SRI H S MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, K.R.NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT. (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA R1 SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADV. FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2220/2014 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioners – Lokayukta Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2018 in Application No.2220/2014 passed the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the Tribunal the order dated

08.07.2013, quashed entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’) and also consequent charge memo dated 26.11.2013 reserving - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 liberty to the Government to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the observations made by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 – Executive Officer belonging to the Department of Panchayath Raj was before the Tribunal questioning the Government order dated 08.07.2013 by which, enquiry against him was entrusted to the petitioners in exercise of its power under Rule 14A of CCA Rules and also consequent charge memo issued by the petitioners dated

26.11.2013. The alleged charge reads as follows: "That you DGO-1 Sri.H.M.Siddalingamurthy, the then Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Mandya and you DGO-2 Sri. D. Prasanna Kumar, the then Junior Engineer, Grama Panchayath, 8. Hosur, Mandya taluk white discharging your duties knowingly entrusted the contract of construction work of the first floor of Kannalli Grama Panchayath building during the period 2003-04 under 11 Finance Scheme at an estimated cost of Rs.2.7 lakhs to Sri.K.K.Somashekar S/o Sri.K. Krishnappa, Ex Presidnet of Kannali Grama Panchayath in Mandya Taluk, who was the member of the Kannalli - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 Grama Panchayat and thus committed a serious irregularity and violated (i) Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and (ii) Rule 81 of Chapter 09 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Rules 2006 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï (UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï DAiÀĪÀåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2006 and thereby supported Sri. K. Krishnappa the then President of Kannalli Grama Panchayath in Mandya Taluk in entrusting the constructions work to his son Sri.K.K.Somashekar and thereby by both have failed to maintain Absolut integrity and devotion to duty committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus you both are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS(Conduct) Rules, 1966.”

3. In sum and substance, charge against respondent No.2 was that when he was working as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath of Mandya along with DGO-2 Sri.D.Prasanna Kumar, the then Junior Engineer, Grama Panchayath, knowingly entrusted the contract of construction work of the first floor of Kannalli Grama Panchayath to one Sri.K.K.Somashekar S/o Sri.K.Krishnappa, Ex-president of - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 Kannalli Grama Panchayath, Mandya Taluk who was at the relevant point of time was the member of the said Grama Panchayath, which amounted serious irregularity and violation of relevant Rules.

4. The respondent No.2 contended before the Tribunal that he was not working as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Mandya during the alleged period i.e., 2003-04 and he was working as Executive Officer, K.R.Nagar. The said contention was accepted by the Tribunal and entrustment order as well as the consequent charge memo are quashed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G., for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., for respondent No.2. Perused writ petition papers.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioners vehemently contended that respondent No.2 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 failed to submit his reply to the notice issued before submitting report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’) and for the first time he contended before the Tribunal that he was not working as Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayath, Mandya during the relevant period i.e., 2003-04, which is blindly accepted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel would submit that there was no material on record to accept the submission of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in allowing the Application and quashing the entrustment order only on the ground that the second respondent was not working as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Mandya during the relevant period. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that though respondent No.2 failed to submit his reply or participate in the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 proceedings, before submitting Section 12(3) report, petitioners have a bounden duty to investigate the complaint in terms of Section 12(1) of 1984 Act. Unless proper investigation is conducted and prima-facie comes to the conclusion that complainant has made out a case against the DGO, the petitioners cannot accept the complaint as it is. Learned counsel further contends that his name was not found in the complaint and he was issued notice only to be present for spot inspection and a person who has assisted the investigation by attending the spot inspection cannot be charged. Thus, learned counsel would support the order passed by the Tribunal and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G., appearing for respondent No.1 supports the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that Tribunal is not justified in quashing the entrustment order as well as consequent charge memo. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018

9. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, “Whether the Tribunal committed any error in allowing respondent No.2’s Application by quashing the entrustment order as well as charge memo?”

10. Answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons:

11. The second respondent who was applicant before the Tribunal has furnished his service particulars which reads as under: “1.

17.10.2002 to 20.2.2004 Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath,Krishnarajanagar, Mysore District.

20.2.2004 to 21.5.2005 Executive Officer, Taluk

2. Panchayath, Periyapatna Tq

25.5.2005 to 23.6.2006 Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

23.6.2006 to 27.7.2007 Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District. The applicant has not worked as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Mandya earlier to 27.7.2007.” - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018

12. The alleged charge against respondent No.2 of entrusting construction of a particular building to son of a Chairman of Grama Panchayath relates to the period of 2003-04. During the said period, respondent No.2 was working as Executive Officer of K.R.Nagar and it also stated that he has never worked as Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Mandya before 2007. Whether the respondent No.2 was issued with notice before submitting Section 12(3) report or whether respondent No.2 participated in the proceedings, in terms of Section 12(1) of 1984 Act, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta as the case may be are obliged to investigate any action involved in the grievance if made out by the complainant and if they are satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, they shall by report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned for appropriate action.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pointed out that respondent No.2’s name was not - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 forthcoming in the complaint and he was only called for to be present at the time of spot inspection. But, enquiry was recommended against respondent No.2 and the charge memo was issued. When the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta are required to investigate and shall be satisfied before making a report, it appears in the instant case, there is no proper investigation and the authorities have failed to find out as to who was working as Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Mandya during the relevant period i.e., 2003-04. Without finding out as to who was functioning as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Mandya, no recommendation or report could have been submitted recommending enquiry against respondent No.2 that too, when he categorically makes statement that during the relevant period, he was working as Executive Officer, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru District.

14. Moreover, the petitioners who were third respondent before the Tribunal have not made any effort to place before the Tribunal any document or material to - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50499-DB WP No. 35266 of 2018 establish that respondent No.2 was working as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Mandya and even before this Court, no document is placed on record to establish that respondent No.2 was working as Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Mandya during the relevant period.

15. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2