STATE OF KARNATAKA v. GANGULLAPPA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER This petition is against the order allowing the application for discharge filed by the accused in Special C.C.No.113/2011.

#2. Accused before the impugned order was passed was facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

#3. Accused was appointed as 'C' group employee later, he was promoted to Group 'B'. The Commissioner of Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'BDA') granted sanction to prosecute the accused.

#4. At the time of commission of alleged offence, the petitioner was working in BDA.

#5. Accused filed an application seeking discharge on the premise that the sanction is not obtained by the competent authority viz., BDA and the Commissioner of BDA is not competent to grant sanction to prosecute. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR

#6. The Trial Court accepting the contention of the accused allowed the application and the respondent herein was discharged. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

#7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent was initially appointed as a Group 'C' employee and later, he was promoted as Group-B employee. In terms of the circular dated 11/02/2010, the Head of the institution is the competent authority to grant sanction in respect of "B' group employee.

#8. Learned counsel would submit that the circular dated 11.02.2010 is not referred to by the Trial Court and it erroneously allowed the application by placing reliance on the evidence of the Commissioner who has stated in the cross examination that he does not have the competence to accord sanction.

#9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the circular prevails over testimony of Commissioner, as such, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR

#10. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Section 50 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'Act, 1976') to contend that the BDA is the competent authority and not the Commissioner.

#11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

#12. The circular relied on by the petitioner reads as under: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ(7) gÀ G¥À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ(1) gÀ ¥ÀgÀAvÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢PÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï UÉæÃqï-II '©' ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ J¯Áè E¯ÁSÉ/¸ÉêÉUÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄƺÀ '©' ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ªÉÆzÀ® £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÉAzÀÄ ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀªÀÄƺÀ E¯ÁSÁ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥Áæ¢PÁgÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄƺÀ '©' ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw C¢¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹/PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄƺÀ-© ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957, ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8 gÀ PÁè¸ï (v) jAzÀ (viii)gÀ°è ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¹zÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢PÁgÀªÁV ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

#13. Circular referred to above would reveal that Head of the Department is the appointing authority under Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR (for short 'Rules, 1957') except Tahasildar Grade -II, Group 'B'. However, said Circular provides that excluding the cases where the Head of the Department is notified as the appointing authority for Group 'B' posts, the Government is the 'disciplinary authority'.

#14. Admittedly, the respondent is employee of BDA. The service conditions of the respondent are governed by the Act, 1976. This Court has to consider, as to whether Section 50 of the Act, 1976 applies to the facts and if so whether the Commissioner of Bengaluru Development Authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution.

#15. The relevant portion of Section 50 reads as under: "50. Appointments, etc., by whom to be made.- (1) Subject to the provisions of the regulations framed under Section 70 and of the schedule for the time being in force sanctioned by the Government under Section 49 the power of appointing, promoting, suspending, dismissing, fining, reducing or granting leave to the Officers and servants of the authority (not being Officers in Government service lent to the authority) shall be exercised by the (Commissioner) in the case of Officers and servants (who are not above the rank of Group 'B' Officer of the State Civil Services) and in every other case by the authority:

#16. Section 50 also refers to the Regulations framed under Section 70 and Schedule under Section 49 of Act of 1976. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR On perusal of Section 50, it is apparent that the Commissioner of BDA is vested with the power of appointment, promotion, suspension, dismissal, reducing or granting leave to the Officers and servants of the BDA if the employees are not above the rank of Group-B. For all other employees, the authority to appoint, promote, suspend, dismiss, to impose fine, to reduce the rank or to sanction leave is the Authority.

#17. As already noticed, Section 50 is subject to any regulation framed under Section 70 of Act of 1976. In exercise of power conferred under Section 70 of Act of 1976, BDA (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation, 1995') is framed and Rules 3 and 4 of Part II of the said Regulations, 1995 are relevant. Rule-3 of Part II of the Regulations, 1995 also provides for classification of the posts and same reads as under: "3. Classification of Posts. - (1) The posts of appointment in the Authority shall be classified as follows. - (a) Group A, (b) Group B, (c) Group C and (d) Group D Note.-(a) Group A Posts. - are posts carrying pay scales the minimum of which is [Rs. 7,400 and above). - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR (b) Group B Posts. are posts carrying pay scales the minimum of which is ²[Rs. 5575 and above, but below Rs. 7400]. (c) Group C Posts. are posts carrying pay scales the minimum of which is ³[above Rs. 2500 but below 5575]. (d) Group D Posts. are posts carrying pay scales the minimum of which is [Rs. 2500 and below]."

#18. Rule 4 in Part II reads as under:

#4. Appointing Authority. - For various categories of posts the appointing authorities shall be as follows. - (a) Authority in the case of Group A and Group B; (b) The Commissioner in the case of Group C and Group D posts. Regulation 2(iii) defines the expression "Appointing Authority" and the definition reads as under: (ii) "Appointing Authority" means Appointing Authority as specified under Section 50 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976;

#19. From the classification of the post, it is evident that the person having salary of Rs.7,400/- per month and above would be falling under Group - A post.

#20. From the records placed before the Court, it is evident that the respondent was having salary of sum of Rs.7,400/- per month at the relevant point of time, so the petitioner came under Group - A post. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR

#21. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed in the year 1975 by City Improvement Trust Board and later, it was acquired by the BDA after BDA came into existence in terms of Act of 1976.

#22. It is noticed that the Regulations, 1995 does not define the expression "authority".

#23. Under Section 2(a) of Act, 1976 "Authority" means, Bangalore Development Authority constituted under Section 3.

#24. This being the position the combined reading of Sections 50, 2(a) and 70 of Act, 1976 read with Regulations 3 and 4 of Regulations, 1995 would lead to the conclusion that the Bangalore Development Authority is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution for Group-A employee.

#25. In the instant case, sanction is granted by the Commissioner who is not competent to grant sanction for Group-A employee of BDA.

#26. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the sanction granted by the Commissioner is not a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38572 CRL.RP No. 152 of 2018 HC-KAR valid sanction. Accordingly, the Trial Court is justified in accepting the claim of the respondent.

#27. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed. (ii) Notwithstanding dismissal of the petition, the petitioner may seek sanction from the competent authority, if advised in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 48 ...