Full Judgment Text
- -
WP No.1831/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JANUARY 2017
R
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WRIT PETITION NO.1831/2017 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
SRI C.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE M.V.CHANNRAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CHITRADURGA – 577 502
RESIDING AT: NO.HIG-243/A
NEHA NILAYA, K.H.B. COLONY
NEAR K.H.B OFFICE
KELAGATE, CHITRADURGA – 577 502 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE – 560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE – 560 001
- -
WP No.1831/2017
2
3. THE UPA-LOKAYUKTHA
OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S.BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE – 560 001
4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
OF ENQUIRIES-10
OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED)
WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY
REPORT DATED 26.10.2016 (ANNEXURE-P) SUBMITTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF
RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 04.11.2016 (ANNEXURE-Q).
WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for
quashing of the enquiry report dated 26.10.2016
(Annexure-P) submitted by Additional Registrar of
Enquiries-10, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, and also to
quash the recommendation dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure-Q)
of Upalokayukta, State of Karnataka.
- -
WP No.1831/2017
3
2. The petitioner was subjected to a Disciplinary Inquiry
on the following charge:
“That Sri. Krishnamurthy, the DGO while working
as the Assistant Executive Engineer, KHB, Davangere,
the KHB notified to acquire 360 acres of land in
Kundawada village by fixing the value at Rs. 5 lakhs per
acre but, without paying the fixed compensation directly
to the owners of the land, DGO managed to get the land
owners entitled for compensation to Bangalore and
caused to pay compensation at Rs. 4,10,000/- per acre
to the owners instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- by taking their
signatures to cheques of Corporation bank of Anandrao
Circle Branch in Bangalore and thus caused loss to
several owners of acquired land failing to maintain
absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and acted in
a manner unbecoming of Government servant and thus
committed misconduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to
(iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966.”
The Inquiry Officer has held that the charge is
proved as per the enquiry report dated 26.10.2016
(Annexure-P). Upalokayukta, after considering the enquiry
report, has recommended as per Annexure-Q dated
04.11.2016 as follows:
“..……………………………………………………………………………………….
9. Hence, considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer
and also, having regard to the nature and the gravity of
the misconduct alleged against the DGO, it is hereby
recommended that the DGO – Shri Krishnamurthy, Asst.
Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, District
Project Office, Davanagere, be punished with the
penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ in exercise of powers
under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
10. Further, if the DGO is not prosecuted, he may be
prosecuted for cheating the farmers and also, steps be
taken for recovery of the amount.
- -
WP No.1831/2017
4
11. Action taken in the matter is to be intimated to this
Authority.
Connected records are enclosed herewith.”
3. We have heard Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
He submitted that the recommendation of Upalokayukta is
almost like a final order, and therefore, is unsustainable in
law.
4. The recommendation is made by Upalokayukta as
per Rule 14-A(2)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957; the Rule
reads as follows:
“14-A(2)(d) After the inquiry is completed,
the record of the case along with the findings of
the Inquiring Officer and the recommendation of
the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta as the case
may be, shall be sent to the Government.”
By considering a regulation which is similar to the rule
extracted above, this Court in Writ Petition No.23485/2015
(D.D. 24.11.2016) has held that Upalokayukta is required
to send his recommendation along with the record of
the case and the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the
Disciplinary Authority. In the said decision, it is held
that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
- -
WP No.1831/2017
5
The KPTCL vs. Javarai Gowda & Anr. [ILR 2015 KAR 1615]
is per incuriam. Further, it is stated in the said decision
that the Disciplinary Authority is at liberty to disagree with
the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and/or the
recommendation of Upalokayukta by giving reasons to
record its own findings. The recommendation given under
the above extracted Rule is not declared as final under any
provision of law. Therefore, the apprehension of the
petitioner that the recommendation of Upalokayukta is the
final order in the matter is not correct. It is for the
Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter and to make a
final order. With this observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR