Writ Petition No. 17085 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 17085 OF 2021 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 24336 OF 2022 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 24580 OF 2022 (GM-RES) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka IN WP No. 17085/2021 BETWEEN: SRI. B. THIPPARAJU, S/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION, BBMP COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY (BBMP-2) URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 3. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001 4. THE REGISTRAR OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. SURESH G.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 17A OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-E
Decision
TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. IN WP NO. 24336/2022 BETWEEN: K. SRINIVAS S/O LATE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.122, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, ...PETITIONER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. G.M. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.NAE 19 BBS 2022 BENGALURU DATED 19.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ANNEXURE-K AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC. IN WP NO. 24580/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, 4TH B CROSS, AMRUTHALLI, BANGALORE-560 092. (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN ...PETITIONER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2) REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.M. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.NAE 22 BBS 2022 BENGALURU DATED 05.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, ANNEXURE-G AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri. V.Srinivas and learned counsel Sri. Rakesh.B.Bhatt for the petitioners, Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State, Sri. G.M.Suresh, learned counsel for Sri. B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent-Lokayukta and learned counsels Sri. M.A.Subramani and Sri. K.B.Monesh Kumar for respondent-BBMP. 2. Since all the above writ petitions involve common question, all the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In all the above petitions, the petitioners are working as Assistant Revenue Officer/Revenue Officer in the respondent-BBMP. The Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority insofar as the petitioners are concerned is the Chief Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP'). 4. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Government Order bearing No.NAE 17 BBS 2021 dated 04.08.2021 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 (Annexure-E) in W.P.No.17085/2021; Government Order bearing No.NAE 22 BBS 2022 dated 05.11.2022 (Annexure-G) in W.P.No.24580/2022 and Government Order bearing No.NAE 19 BBS 2022 dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-K) in W.P.No.24336/2022. 5. Under the above stated Government Orders, respondent No.1-State Government has accorded approval for enquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C.Act, 1988') against the petitioners. The petitioners mainly contend that under Section 17A of the P.C.Act, the permission shall have to be obtained from the Appointing Authority or Authority Competent to remove such Officer. It is submitted that in the instant cases, in respect of the petitioners who are working as Assistant Revenue Officer/Revenue Officer in the respondent-BBMP, the Appointing Authority is Chief Commissioner of BBMP and the State Government is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, they submit that the impugned orders granting approval for enquiry under Section 17A of the P.C.Act is wholly without jurisdiction. Further, they place reliance on the decision of this Court dated 07.12.2022 in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 W.P.No.23896/2022 a/w W.P.No.23928/2022. Thus, they pray for allowing the writ petitions. 6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsels appearing for other respondents in the above writ petitions are not in a position to dispute the legal position. 7. Having regard to the above facts and on hearing learned counsels for the parties, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned Government Orders under challenge are legally sustainable. 8. Answer to the above point would be in the 'Negative' and the Government Orders under challenge are not sustainable in law for the following reasons: 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are either working as Assistant Revenue Officer/Revenue Officer in the respondent-BBMP. The Appointing Authority in relation to the petitioners is Chief Commissioner of BBMP. Respondent No.1- State Government is neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority in relation to the petitioners. 10. Section 17A of the P.C.Act, 1988 reads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 "1[17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.- No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval- (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.]" 11. Section 17A(1)(c) would apply to the petitioners. The approval for enquiry or investigation by Lokayukta shall be obtained from the Authority competent to remove the petitioners at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. In relation to the petitioners, respondent No.3- Commissioner is the Competent Authority to remove the petitioners from the Office at the time of offence is alleged to have been committed. This Court in the above referred W.P.No.23896/2022 a/w W.P.No.23928/2022 has clearly held at Paragraph No.8 as follows: "8. In the case of petitioners, 3rd respondent- Commissioner, BBMP would be Competent Authority to remove them from service. Therefore, it was for the 3rd respondent-Commissioner to accord approval if a case is made out for enquiry or investigation. The impugned order at Annexure-G is passed by the Government at the request of the then Anti Corruption Bureau ("ACB" for short) under its letter dated 30.03.2022. The Government is neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority in relation to the petitioners and Government would not - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3387 WP No. 17085 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24336 of 2022 WP No. 24580 of 2022 possess the power to remove the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order is without jurisdiction." 12. In the above circumstances, the following: ORDER (a) Writ Petitions are allowed; (b) Government Order bearing No.NAE 17 BBS 2021 dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure-E) in W.P.No.17085/2021; Government Order bearing No.NAE 22 BBS 2022 dated 05.11.2022 (Annexure-G) in W.P.No.24580/2022 and Government Order bearing No.NAE 19 BBS 2022 dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-K) in W.P.No.24336/2022 are quashed. (c) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ