Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 622 (KAR)

R. CHALUVAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1997-10-21

T.S.THAKUR

body1997
TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 22nd of september, 1997 issued by the commissioner of corporation of city of Bangalore demoting him from the post of executive engineer to that of assistant executive engineer by way of punishment in the purported exercise of the powers vested in the latter under Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an executive engineer in the Bangalore city corporation. An enquiry into certain charges levelled against him was instituted by the government by its order dated 26th of december, 1994 and entrusted to the upalokayukta under Rule 14-a of the k. c. s. (c. c. a.) rules, 1957. The upalokayukta, conducted the enquiry and drew up a report dated 11th of february, 1997 holding the charges to have been proved. The record of the case along with the findings were then submitted to the government under Rule 14-a (2) (d) of kc. s. and c. c a. Rules with the recommendation that a punishment of reduction in rank to the grade of assistant executive engineer be imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 8 (v) of k. c. s. (c. c. a.) rules, 1957, with appropriate directions as required under clauses a and b of that sub-rule. On receipt of the recommendations the government by its communication dated 15th of may, 1987, forwarded the matter to the commissioner, respondent 2, herein asking him to take appropriate action against the petitioner as recommended by the upalokayukta. consequently, the commissioner has after issuing a show cause notice and considering the reply received from him demoted the petitioner to the post of assistant executive engineer. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity of the said order inter alia on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) MR. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a two fold submission in support of the petition. First he urged that the Provisions of the lokayukta act under which the upalokayukta had submitted his report and recommendations required appropriate action to be taken on the report by the competent authority. ( 3 ) MR. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a two fold submission in support of the petition. First he urged that the Provisions of the lokayukta act under which the upalokayukta had submitted his report and recommendations required appropriate action to be taken on the report by the competent authority. He referred to and relied upon section 12 (4) in support of his submission that it was the competent authority stipulated under the act alone who was required to examine the report forwarded to it within three months and intimate to the lokayukta or the upalokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis thereof. The expression 'competent authority' is defined by Section 2 (4) of the lokayukta act and in relation to a public servant other than a government servant, means such 'authority' as may be prescribed for the purpose. He urged that Rule 3 of the Karnataka lokayukta rules, 1985, prescribed the 'government of karnataka' to be the 'competent authority' in respect of public servants referred to in Section 2 (4) (d) of the act. He contended that on receipt of the report from the upalokayukta, it was the government who ought to have passed an order in terms of Section 12 (4) (b) of the act or taken appropriate action including one by way of imposing a punishment upon the petitioner. ( 4 ) MR. Ashok haranahalli, counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand urged that Section 12 (4) of the Act, only envisages examination by the 'competent authority' of the report submitted to it and an intimation to the lokayukta or the upalokayukta as the case may be of the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis thereof. He urged that the nature of the action that the 'competent authority' may take on receipt of the report would depend upon the facts of each case and in the case of employees of autonomous or statutory bodies like the respondent-corporation, such action may include issuing directions to the authority competent under the cadre recruitment rules to issue appropriate orders in accordance with the report submitted by the lokayukta. In as much as the government had referred the matter to the authority who was in its opinion competent to impose the punishment under the rules governing the petitioner, it committed no illegality or other impropriety. In as much as the government had referred the matter to the authority who was in its opinion competent to impose the punishment under the rules governing the petitioner, it committed no illegality or other impropriety. ( 5 ) SECTION 12 (4) of the Karnataka lokayukta act reads thus. "section 12 (4 ). The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the lokayukta or the upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report". ( 6 ) FROM a plain reading of the above, it is evident that while the report of the lokayukta or the upalokayukta has to be submitted to the competent authority, the nature of the action that may be taken on receipt of any such report is not indicated. the nature of the action would therefore depend upon the facts of each case, and may not necessarily take the form of an order of punishment against the delinquent. For instance an order directing the authority competent under the service rules governing the employee to take appropriate action in the light of the report submitted by the lokayukta, may satisfy the requirement of Section 12 (4 ). This is particularly true about employees of statutory and other autonomous organisations whose cadre and recruitment rules, may identify different disciplinary authorities for different categories of employees. In all such cases it would be legitimate for the competent authority under the lokayukta act to refer the matter to the concerned disciplinary authority for appropriate action. Any such reference would constitute 'action taken' within the meaning of Section 12 (4) of the act. It follows that just because the lokayukta submits a report to the competent authority in terms of Section 12 (4) or just because the 'competent authority' in the case of public servant falling under section 2 (4) (d) is the government itself, would not mean that the ultimate order of punishment imposed should also be issued by the government alone. It follows that just because the lokayukta submits a report to the competent authority in terms of Section 12 (4) or just because the 'competent authority' in the case of public servant falling under section 2 (4) (d) is the government itself, would not mean that the ultimate order of punishment imposed should also be issued by the government alone. It is possible as pointed out above for the competent authority to refer the matter to the authority competent to impose the punishment in which event any such action would be deemed to be a sufficient compliance with the Provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Act, I have therefore no difficulty in rejecting the first limb of the submission made by Mr. Hegde. ( 7 ) THERE is however considerable merit in the alternative submission made by Mr. Hegde. It was urged that even if the government was under no obligation to pass a final order of punishment under the lokayukta act yet any such order could under the cadre and recruitment rules governing the petitioner be passed only by the government and none else. Reliance in this regard was placed by him upon the Provisions of karnataka city corporation employees condition of service rules, 1988 framed under Section 421 read with sections 90 and 91 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Schedule ii to the said rules indicates the 'authorities competent' to impose penalties upon employees of the corporation under Rule 8 of the Karnataka civil services (c. c. a.) rules, 1957. Schedule ii may at this stage be extracted: "schedule ii- authorities competent to impose under Rule 8 of the Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957 and the authority to whom an appeal lies against such order of imposition of penalties. (appointing authorities have been specified in Rule 2 of Karnataka municipal corporations rules, 1977 and Section 84 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act ). Classes of post Authority empowered to impose penalties which he may impose Appellate Authorities Authority Penalties (See Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957) (1) (2) (3) (4) I. Group-A Government (ii) to (viii) II. Group-B Commissioner (ii) to (viii) Government. Classes of post Authority empowered to impose penalties which he may impose Appellate Authorities Authority Penalties (See Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957) (1) (2) (3) (4) I. Group-A Government (ii) to (viii) II. Group-B Commissioner (ii) to (viii) Government. ( 8 ) IT is apparent from a plain reading of the above that in so far as group-a employees of the corporation are concerned, the authority competent to impose any punishment envisaged by Rule 8 (ii) to (viii) of Karnataka civil services (c. c. a.) rules, 1957, is the government itself. As regards group-b employees such penalties can be imposed by the commissioner of the corporation. The expression 'government' has been defined by Rule 2 (2) to be 'government in any housing and urban development department'. It follows that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 8 (v) of the c. c. a. rules, could have been imposed upon the petitioners only by the government in the light of the Provisions of the aforementioned rules, for it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a group-a employee of the corporation. In the circumstances, the government need not have made a reference to the commissioner and even if such a reference was made, the commissioner ought to have sent it back to the government for appropriate orders in the light of the Provisions of rules aforementioned, the order passed by the commissioner demoting the petitioner to the next lower post, is therefore clearly beyond his jurisdiction hence unsustainable. ( 9 ) IN the result this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. the impugned order of demotion passed by the commissioner is hereby set aside reserving liberty for the government to take appropriate action in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. ( 10 ) NO costs. --- *** --- .