Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 766 (KAR)

M. P. Jaishankar v. State Of Karnataka

2014-09-01

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2014
Judgment : 1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the parties, the petitions are heard on merits. 2. The petitioner is working as a Development Officer in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, a statutory Board constituted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Lokayuktha Police on 27.12.2007 caught red handed the petitioner while accepting bribe. Therefore, a case was registered against him in Special C.C.No.21/2010. Charge sheet was filed later on stating that sanction order was obtained to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984. 3. On 11.11.2011, respondent No.2-Karnataka Upalokayuktha sent a report to the Government to take further steps on the ground that petitioner has committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Based on the report of the Lokayuktha dated 11.11.2011, the State of Karnataka passed an order on 23.1.2012 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Respondent No.3 was appointed as an enquiry officer and when respondent No.3 issued articles of charge on 16.6.2012, challenging the entrustment of enquiry to be conducted by Lokayuktha, writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.41590/2012. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 19.10.2012 granting liberty to the employer of the petitioner to take such steps as may be advised on the ground that Lokayuktha cannot not conduct an enquiry against the petitioner on the premise that Karnataka Civil Service Rules has no application to the employees of respondent No.4. 4. Again the matter was referred to respondent No.2 pursuant to the order passed in the Executing Committee Meeting of the respondent No.4. Based on the same, respondent No.2-Upalakayuktha has nominated respondent No.3-Additional Registrar Enquiries to frame charges against the petitioner. On 6.7.2013, respondent No.3 has framed articles of charges against the petitioner, which is nothing but replica of articles of charges, framed earlier and quashed in W.P.41590/2012. Therefore, the present petitions are filed. 5. Though several grounds are urged in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 could not have referred the matter to Upalokayuktha to hold enquiry against the petitioner and inturn Upalokayuktha has no power to direct respondent No.3 to frame charges and proceed with the matter. Therefore, the present petitions are filed. 5. Though several grounds are urged in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 could not have referred the matter to Upalokayuktha to hold enquiry against the petitioner and inturn Upalokayuktha has no power to direct respondent No.3 to frame charges and proceed with the matter. According to him, provisions of Lokayuktha Act is applicable to an employee who is serving in the statutory body provided such statutory body has adopted Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to its employees. According to him Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to the employees of respondent No.4. When such an order was set aside in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, again the respondent No.4 referring the matter to Upalokayuktha is not correct and is liable to be quashed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only ground to be considered by this Court is whether the Upalokayuktha would get the jurisdiction to pass an order on the recommendations of respondent No.4 in the absence of applicability of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 does not dispute that the employees of the KIADB are not governed by Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 8. When separate service regulations are framed by respondent No.4 and when it has not adopted the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, question of entrusting the enquiry to respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 by the respondent No.4 does not arise. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of. The order passed by the respondent No.4 entrusting the matter to Upalokayuktha to hold enquiry and further order passed therein by the Upalokayuktha are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondent No.4 to take action in accordance with law as per its service conditions.