Full Judgment Text
- -
WP No.58401/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF JANUARY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
R
WRIT PETITION NO.58401/2017 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
T.N.RAVIPRAKASH
S/O NARASIMHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
SECOND DIVISION SURVEYOR
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU & R/AT NO.428
TH
6 MAIN, KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU – 560 060 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.NAGAPRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001
2. COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY
SETTLEMENT & LAND RECORDS IN
KARNATAKA, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001
3. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001
- -
WP No.58401/2017
2
4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-8
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 29.11.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION
NO.6857/2017, THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2017 (ANNEXURE-A4)
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2017 (ANNEXURE–A5) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. The question that requires to be examined in this case
is, whether sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘the Act’ for short) applies to any
complaint involving an allegation as defined in Section 2(2)
of the Act? The question is answered in the negative .
2. This writ petition is directed against the order
dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) rejecting the
- -
WP No.58401/2017
3
petitioner’s application in Application No.6857/2017 with the
following order:
“10. Further, it is well settled that interference in the
conduct of disciplinary proceedings and the consequential
order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority is
permissible only (i) where the disciplinary proceedings are
initiated by an incompetent authority; (ii) such proceedings
are in violation of any statutory rule of law; (iii) where there
has been gross violation of principles of natural justice; and
(iv) on account of proven bias and mala fides. None of the
above grounds is present in the case on hand warranting
interference with the impugned order and Articles of
Charge.”
The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner before
the Tribunal challenging the order dated 16.09.2017
(Annexure-A4) passed by the Government in exercise of the
power under Rule 14-A(2)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 entrusting
holding of disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner to
Upa-lokayukta in respect of a certain misconduct alleged
against him. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner had
also challenged the Articles of charge dated 30.10.2017
(Annexure-A5) issued to the petitioner by Additional
Registrar Enquiries-8, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru.
3. The sole contention urged by Sri M.Nagaprasanna,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the
- -
WP No.58401/2017
4
complaint made against the petitioner involved only a
grievance as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act in respect of
an action taken, and hence could not have been the subject
matter of investigation by Upa-lokayukta in view of Section
8(1)(b) of the Act. To examine the contention urged, it is
relevant to refer to sub-sections (1), (2) & (8) of Section 2
and Section 8 of the Act; they read as follows:
“ 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(1)
" action " means administrative action taken by way of
decision, recommendation or finding or in any other
manner and includes wilful failure or omission to act
and all other expressions relating to such action shall
be construed accordingly;
(2) " allegation " in relation to a public servant means any
affirmation that such public servant,-
(a) has abused his position as such public servant
to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to
any other person or to cause undue harm or
hardship to any other person;
(b) was actuated in the discharge of his functions
as such public servant by personal interest or
improper or corrupt motives;
(c) is guilty of corruption, favoritism, nepotism, or
lack of integrity in his capacity as such public
servant; or
(d) has failed to act in accordance with the norms
of integrity and conduct which ought to be
followed by public servants of the class to
which he belongs;
………………………………………………………………………………………………
(8) " grievance " means a claim by a person that he
sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence
of maladministration;
8. Matters not subject to investigation.- (1) Except as
hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not
- -
WP No.58401/2017
5
conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint
involving a grievance in respect of any action,-
(a) if such action relates to any matter specified in
the Second Schedule; or
(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by
way of appeal, revision, review or other
proceedings before any Tribunal, Court officer
or other authority and has not availed of the
same.
(2) The Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not investigate,-
(a) any action in respect of which a formal and
public inquiry has been ordered with the prior
concurrence of the Lokayukta or an
Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be;
(b) any action in respect of a matter which has
been referred for inquiry, under the
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the prior
concurrence of the Lokayukta or an
Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be;
(c) any complaint involving a grievance made after
the expiry of a period of six months from the
date on which the action complained against
becomes known to the complainant; or
(d) any complaint involving an allegation made
after the expiry of five years from the date on
which the action complained against is alleged
to have taken place:
Provided that he may entertain a complaint referred to in
clauses (c) and (d) if the complainant satisfies that he had
sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period
specified in those clauses.
(3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance,
nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the
Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta to question any administrative
action involving the exercise of a discretion except where he is
satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the
discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can
prima facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. We have perused the complaint against the petitioner
which is at Annexure-A1. The complaint is that while he was
working as a Taluk Surveyor, he prepared a false sketch in
- -
WP No.58401/2017
6
respect of Sy.No.56/3B of Chunchanakuppe Village,
Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk to favour two
persons namely, Udayashankar and Chikkarevanna. The
charge framed against the petitioner at Annexure-A5 reads
as follows:
“2. That you DGO Sri T.N.Ravi Prakash, while working
as Taluk Surveyor, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South
taluk, Bengaluru, prepared wrong and illegal sketch in
respect of Sy.no.56/3B of Chunchana Kuppe, Bangalore
South Taluk, without issuing notice to concerned parties
and without following the procedure at the instance of one
Udaya Shanker and Chikka Revanna in order to help them
and thereby, you DGO has failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty, the act of which is
unbecoming of a Government Servant and you DGO has
committed misconduct as enumerated under Rule 3(1) of
Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.”
5. In our opinion, the complaint made against the
petitioner amounts to an allegation as defined in Section
2(2) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act will
have no application in respect of any complaint involving an
allegation . The contention urged is, therefore, devoid of
merit.
6. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer
from any error to warrant interference under the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is
- -
WP No.58401/2017
7
accordingly dismissed. Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti, learned
counsel is permitted to file his memo of appearance for
respondent nos.3 & 4.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.