RTO Official’s Zalki Checkpost Disciplinary Case Sent Back After Lokayukta Presenter’s Note Lacked Written Delegation: Karnataka HC Upholds Tribunal’s Remand

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the entrustment order and articles of charge and remitting the matter for de novo consideration

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the Tribunal’s order setting aside the entrustment order and articles of charge and remitting the matter for de novo consideration, and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications

01Facts

A complaint alleging illegal collections at the Zalki RTO Check Post led the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register Crime No. 3 of 2017 and conduct a search, during which respondent No. 1, then a First Division Assistant, was among the officials arrested

pp. 3–4, 7–8

Following a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the competent authority’s decision to hold a disciplinary inquiry, the petitioners entrusted the inquiry and issued articles of charge against him

p. 4, 8

Respondent No. 1 challenged those steps before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

p. 5

The Tribunal set aside the entrustment order and articles of charge and remitted the matter for de novo consideration from the stage of issuance of an observation note

p. 5

The Lokayukta and the Additional Registrar of Enquiries challenged that order in the High Court

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the entrustment order and articles of charge and remitting the matter for de novo consideration

pp. 5–6, 8

ii.2. Whether the observation note could be issued without a written order delegating the relevant powers under Sections 19 and 21 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act

pp. 8–10, 14

03Law Applied

Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act provides for officers and employees to assist the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta in discharging their statutory functions, and permits the use of specified officers, agencies or persons for investigations

pp. 10–11

Under Section 19, the Government may, by written order and after consultation with an Upalokayukta, confer powers on the Upalokayukta to conduct specified disciplinary or other proceedings, including through officers, employees and agencies referred to in Section 15

pp. 12–13

Section 21 permits the Upalokayukta, by general or special written order, to direct that functions and powers conferred under Section 19 be exercised or discharged by specified officers, employees or agencies

p. 13

The judgment cites no precedents.

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 Section 2 Section 7 Section 12 Section 15 Section 19 Section 21 Section 26

04Reasoning

The Court considered Sections 15, 19 and 21 together, finding that although the Act permits officers and employees to assist in carrying out the relevant functions, the exercise or delegation of the powers in question must be supported by a written order

pp. 10–14

In this case, the Presenting Officer issued the observation note to respondent No. 1 and called for his comments without such a written order

p. 14

The Court therefore agreed with the Tribunal that the observation note was contrary to law and that the matter was properly remitted for de novo consideration.

p. 14

It found no error in the Tribunal’s order

p. 14