Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 773 (KAR)

Manjunath R. Ballari v. State of Karnataka

2017-04-19

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA, V.P.BALIGAR

body2017
ORDER : V.P. Baligar, J. 1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these applications, these applications are clubbed, heard together and a common order is passed. The applicants pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 6-9-2013 issued by the 1st respondent and articles of charge dated 8/20-4-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) The applicant in A. No. 2198 of 2016 was working as Tahsildar at Yellapur Taluk, North Canara District and the applicant in A. No. 2199 of 2016 was working as Tahsildar, Harapanahalli Taluk, in Davanagere District, during which time the allegations were made against them that one Sri Kharapudi Mahesh, paid a bribe of Rs. 36,000/- between 6-1-2010 to 22-2-2010 to the applicant in A. No. 2198 of 2016 and Rs. 5,000/- on 7-12-2010 to the applicant in A. No. 2199 of 2016 as per Table No. 1 in Chapter 28 of the report of Dr. U.V. Singh, Chief Conservator of Forests, submitted to the Lokayukta in July 2011. (ii) Pursuant to the report submitted by the Lokayukta dated 27-7-2011 regarding illegal mining and transportation of iron ore, the State Government constituted a High Level Committee to prepare a plan of action on the report of the Hon'ble Lokayukta. The High Level Committee on the basis of Dr. U.V. Singh's report submitted by the Lokayukta, suggested to take action against the Revenue Department officials whose name appear in Chapter 28, Table 1 of the Report of Lokayukta dated 27-7-2011 after the Regional Commissioner examined the circumstantial evidences, which can establish prima facie case for further action to be initiated. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to entrust the enquiry to the 2nd respondent under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('KCS (CC&A) Rules' for short) to hold the enquiry against the applicants and others. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that merely based on an entry by one Sri Kharapudi Mahesh that he has paid a bribe of 36,000/- and Rs. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that merely based on an entry by one Sri Kharapudi Mahesh that he has paid a bribe of 36,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively to the Tahsildars of Yellapura and Harapanahalli, as mentioned in the Lokayukta report, a show-cause notice was issued to the applicants on 13-9-2011 calling for their explanation and the applicants submitted detailed replies on 20-9-2011 and 15-9-2011 respectively denying the allegations that since they were working as Tahsildars in Yellapura and Harapanahalli, they had no connection with the illegal transportation of iron ore, it is further contended that the Government had constituted the High Level Committee to look into the report of the Lokayukta on illegal mining which recommended that since in the Lokayukta Report, no specific name of the officer is indicated but only the designation of the post is mentioned, the Regional Commissioner may be entrusted the responsibility of examining the circumstantial evidences which can establish prima facie case to initiate further action against the concerned officials; but without considering the said recommendation of the High Level Committee, the 1st respondent blindly entrusted the enquiry against the applicants and others to the 2nd respondent under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, without there being any recommendations from the Lokayutha under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('K.L. Act' for short). It is further submitted that the said decision has been taken despite entrustment of enquiry by appointing a retired District Judge in respect of officers of the Revenue Department involved in illegal mining issue and no reasons have been assigned as to why the 1st respondent has entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, to the Lokayukta. It is also submitted that on 18-11-2013, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 ('ARE-4' for short) who was entrusted with the conduct of the enquiry on the basis of the G.O. dated 6-9-2013, called for the records to frame articles of charge against the applicants and on 10-12-2013, the 1st respondent, enclosing the Lokayukta Report (Chapter 28), dated 27-7-2011 stating that the charges be framed on the basis of the said report; but, being unable to frame the charges on the basis of the report of the Lokayukta, once again ARE-4 sought for further information and directed the concerned authorities to be present in his chamber, in the absence of specific allegations against the DGOs to frame Articles of charge, which is evident from the copies of the correspondence dated 18-11-2013, 10-12-2013 and 9-1-2014 between 1st respondent and ARE-4. Perusal of these letters shows that mere appearance of the names of the applicants in the Lokayukta report is not sufficient to proceed with the enquiry against the applicants and others. The learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the 2nd respondent-Lokayukta instead of calling further documents from the 1st respondent to frame the charges against the applicants, transferred the entire enquiry file from ARE-4 to Additional Registrar of Enquiries-2 ('ARE-2' for short) by O.M. dated 17-1-2015 and hence, there was no justification for changing the Enquiry Officer when ARE-4 justifiably needed additional documents to proceed with the enquiry. It is contended that still, articles of charge dated 8-4-2015 were issued and the applicants submitted their statement of defence dated 25-8-2015 denying the charges on the main grounds that no opportunity was given to them to submit their plea before the Investigation Officer and that the charges have been framed without providing any opportunity which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. 4. The other grounds put forward on behalf of the applicants are as follows : (i) Based on the High Level Committee report regarding implementation of the recommendation of the Lokayukta against the DGOs, whose names had appeared in the report, the State Government had directed various departments who were allegedly involved in the illegal mining and in the Home Department, further investigation was conducted by one Sri V.S. D'Souza, who after a detailed investigation came to the following conclusion : "My conclusions are based on data collected by me, statements made by various witnesses summoned by me. Conclusions arrived at by Dr. U.V. Singh, regarding payment of bribe by Sri Kharapudi Mahesh and acceptance by 191 Police officials is not based on any evidence. I am of the view that the principles of natural justice, have not been followed. For the reasons suggested above, I am of the view that no prima facie case is made out to initiate proceedings under Rule 6 of KSP (DP) Rules." (ii) Similarly, in the Mines Department, the matter was entrusted to a Senior KAS Officer-Sri Kari Gowda, who also came up with a view that the report furnished to him was not sufficient and no other documents are made available to proceed against the officials of the Mines Department. (iii) The procedure prescribed under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, on a reference made under Section 7 or 9 of the K.L. Act, after investigation, a report has to be submitted to the Competent Authority under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act, recommending for initiating enquiry against the erring officials on the basis of the investigation conducted. However, in the instant case, the report that has been submitted by the Lokayukta is only a general report recommending further investigation by the concerned department but, without further investigation to find out exact role of the DGOs and specific misconduct made out against them and in the absence of report under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act, for initiating enquiry against the officials, entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, is unjust and bad in law. (iv) Section 12(4) of the K.L. Act, specifically states that the authorities shall examine the report forwarded to it under Section 12(3) along with other materials placed before it by the Lokayukta, but in the instant case, not even a reference has been made to the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act, since it is not there. (v) This Tribunal in H.N. Niranjan v. State of Karnataka, A. No. 725 of 2014, disposed of on 27-11-2014 has held that before entrusting the enquiry, the authority should examine and satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made out in the report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act, to hold an enquiry against a delinquent official under Rule 14-A of KCS (CC&A) Rules, otherwise entrustment of enquiry would be bad in law. (vi) The charges framed against the applicants are vague and not specific and definite. The statement of imputations of misconduct is not at all relevant to the charge made against the applicants; except appearance of some reference to the Tahsildars of Yellapur and Harapanahalli for having received Rs.36,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively in the pen drive of Sri Kharapudi Mahesh, there is no documentary evidence or records available regarding receipt of the alleged amount. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court on the issue of denial of natural justice : (a) State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 : (1998) 2 SLR 786 (SC) : (1998) 4 SCC 154 ; (b) Dr. K. Chowdappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar. 798; (c) Union of India and Others v. Gyan Chand Chattar, 2009 (79) AIC 18 (SC) : (2009) 5 SLR 214 (SC) : 2009-IV-LLJ-321 (SC) : 2009 (8) SCJ 542 : V(2009) SLT 97 : (2009) 12 SCC 78 . Therefore, for the facts and circumstances and the grounds explained above, and in view of the principle of denial of natural justice, learned Counsel for the applicants prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 6. Therefore, for the facts and circumstances and the grounds explained above, and in view of the principle of denial of natural justice, learned Counsel for the applicants prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 6. Learned Government Pleader for 1st respondent has defended the initiation of enquiry against the applicants since the Lokayukta has got the illegal mining issue investigated and based on its report, the 1st respondent has entrusted the enquiry against the applicants under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. It is submitted that the Government had referred several issues concerning illegal mining in the State to the Lokayukta for investigation under Section 7(2-A) of the K.L. Act vide G.O. No. CI 164 MMM 2006, dated 12-3-2007, 9-9-2008 and 19-7-2010 and accordingly, the Lokayukta, after investigation submitted two reports Part (1) and (2) of the K.L. Act, in which it is stated that the Tahsildars Yellapur and Harapanahalli and other officers of the Revenue Department and a large number of officers of various departments were guilty of supporting illegal mining and hence, the enquiry ordered against the applicants is in accordance with law. 7. Sri G. Devaraj, learned Counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents has filed statement of objections in which he has given details of illegal mining activities in Ballari District and illegal transportation of iron ore as brought out in the U.V. Singh's report. He has also referred to the report of the High Level Committee, which was set up by G.O. dated 18-11-2015 to advise the Government in respect of implementation of the recommendations contained in the Lokayukta report. It is submitted that in Chapter 28 of the Lokayukta Report dated 27-7-2011 regarding Collapse of Administration and Governance System, in which there is an entry that Sri Kharapudi Mahesh and his associates have paid bribes to 617 officials and in that list it is mentioned that the Yellapur Tahsildar has been paid Rs. 36,000/- on 6-1-2010 to 22-2-2010 and Harapanahalli Tahsildar has been paid Rs. 5,000/- on 7-12-2009 respectively, which has been disclosed by Sri Kharapudi Mahesh during interrogation by the Income Tax Authorities, based on which the Government has entrusted the enquiry against the applicants. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued the articles of charge. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no merit in the applications and the same deserve to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued the articles of charge. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no merit in the applications and the same deserve to be dismissed. 8. Admittedly, the enquiry has been entrusted by the 1st respondent under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules based on the Lokayukta Report dated 27-7-2011 that in Chapter 28 titled 'Collapse of Administrative and Governance System', there is an entry that one Sri Kharapudi Mahesh during the investigation by the Income Tax Department had given the soft copy of the details of the bribes paid to a large number of officials including Rs. 36,000/- to Yellapur Tahsildar from 6-1-2010 to 22-2-2010 and Rs. 5,000/- paid to Harapanahalli Tahsildar on 7-12-2009. The Government had referred the report of the Lokayukta to the High Level Committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary to ascertain the role of different officers and also to find out who were the officers involved in illegal mining activities or supporting the illegal mining activities. The High Level Committee, after going through the report with reference to the Revenue Department, has made the following recommendations, which is relevant to the applicants : "19(1)(e) Action has been taken by issuing show-cause notices to officials of Revenue Department alleged to have received bribes to favour mining companies. Regional Commissioner has been entrusted with the responsibility of examining feasibility of launching criminal action after assessing circumstantial evidence." 9. However, there is no material to show that the Regional Commissioner was entrusted with the responsibility of assessing the circumstantial evidence against the applicants and others. Therefore, it is clear that without further investigation and only based on the entry in Table (1) of Chapter 28 of the Report of the Lokayukta dated 27-7-2011, the 1st respondent has entrusted the enquiry to the 2nd respondent under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. It is also surprising that there is no reference anywhere in the documents placed before us that the Lokayukta had sent a report under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act and that the Government has examined such report as required under Section 12(4) of the K.L. Act, before entrusting the matter to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. 10. 10. Though the learned Government Pleader in the reply statement has mentioned that the Lokayukta has submitted reports in two parts under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act, but in the reply of the learned Counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents, there is no mention of such report being submitted by the Lokayukta. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, he has discussed in detail the illegal mining which was going on in Ballari and details of Dr. U.V. Singh's report, but there is only one small paragraph (para 14) relevant to the applicants, which reads as follows : In respect of applicant in A. No. 2198 of 2016 : "14. When Lokayukta report was completely read, it was noticed that reference to the present applicants-Sri Manjunath R. Ballary, who was working as Tahsildar at Yellapur during the relevant point of time was found at S. No. 610 of Table 1 (list of 617 officials to whom bribes were paid by said Karapudi Mahesh and his associates) in Chapter 28 of Karnataka Lokayukta Report dated 27-7-2011 regarding collapse of Administration and Governance System. The said entry read as under : 189 Yellapura Tahsildar 36,000/- 6-1-2010 to 22-2-2010 In respect of applicant in A. No. 2199 of 2016 : 14. When Lokayukta report was completely read, it was noticed that reference to the present applicant-Sri Prakash T.V. who was working as Tahsildar at Harapanahalli during the relevant point of time, was found at S. No. 610 of Table 1 (list of 617 officials to whom bribes were paid by said Karapudi Mahesh and his associates) in Chapter 28 of Karnataka Lokayukta Report dated 27-7-2011 regarding collapse of Administration and Governance System. The said entry read as under : 189 Harapanahalli Tahsildar 5,000/- 7-12-2009” 11. It is relevant to note that there are no details as to who has paid the amount and to whom, except mentioning that the Tahsildar of Yellapura has been paid Rs. 36,000/- between 6-1-2010 and 22-2-2010 and Tahsildar of Harapanahalli has been paid Rs. 5,000/- on 7-12-2009, as disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities. It is only an extrapolation that the applicants who were Tahsildars at the relevant time and hence, paid the said amount and hence, they have been paid the said amount. 12. 36,000/- between 6-1-2010 and 22-2-2010 and Tahsildar of Harapanahalli has been paid Rs. 5,000/- on 7-12-2009, as disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities. It is only an extrapolation that the applicants who were Tahsildars at the relevant time and hence, paid the said amount and hence, they have been paid the said amount. 12. It is also relevant here to note that in case of other departmental officers also, where enquiries were to be conducted by the respective departments, the Enquiry/Investigation Officers have come to the conclusion that the material available in the report was not enough to go ahead with the enquiries against the DGOs. For example: with regard to Police Officers, the Home Department had entrusted the investigation to Sri V.S. D'Souza, who has come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out to initiate proceedings against the police officials whose names are found in Dr. U.V. Singh's report. Similarly, Senior K.A.S. Officer-Sri Karigowda also came up with the view that except the names of the officials appearing in the pen drive, no other documents are available to proceed against the persons whose names appear in the pen drive. He also suggested to drop further proceedings against the officials of the mining department. Even the ARE-4 of Lokayukta who was entrusted with the issue of articles of charge could not frame the charges based on the available material and he had asked for certain documents from the concerned department. Later on, the Lokayukta transferred the concerned file of enquiry against the applicants to ARE-2 for enquiry vide O.M. dated 17-1-2015. 13. It is pertinent to note that that in U.V. Singh's report, the Lokayukta has recommended as follows, which is relevant to these applications : “(25) Chapter XXVIII, Page 434 Collapse of Administrative and Governance System There were many firms/companies/individuals who were transporting the illegal Iron ore to Belekeri Port. There are about 60 Bank accounts connected with the Iron Ore trading operated by Sri. K. Mahesh and his associates. On verification of the transactions in these accounts it is noted that there is close linkages between the illegal mining the transactions. There were hundreds of people pages 434 to 464 and his Associates. The names are given table. This list is not exhaustive. There may be many more names. These names would be helpful in further investigation. On verification of the transactions in these accounts it is noted that there is close linkages between the illegal mining the transactions. There were hundreds of people pages 434 to 464 and his Associates. The names are given table. This list is not exhaustive. There may be many more names. These names would be helpful in further investigation. There was heavy movement of vehicles from one plot to other the leases to plots without having any permit. The seized record of Income Tax Department pertaining to Sri Madhukumar Varma (MKV) indicates payments made to various persons for various purposes. Since a partnership firm M/s. Madhushree Enterprises is managed by him involved in illegal mining in Bellary District, a further investigation is required in this matter. It is observed form the seized records that hawala money is paid. Though the quantum of money is quite less, but it indicates the prevailing of hawala transactions in illegal minings. This requires further investigations." But, without further investigation as suggested by the Lokayukta as well as the High Level Committee, the 1st respondent has entrusted the enquiry against the applicants to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. 14. This Tribunal in H.N. Niranjan v. State of Karnataka and Others, A. No. 725 of 2014, disposed of on 27-11-2014 has held that after submission of the report by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act, the authorities shall examine the report along with other materials and such examination should be reflected in the order of entrustment to the Lokayukta. Though the Lokayukta had recommended for further investigation, without further investigation, the 1st respondent has entrusted the enquiry against the applicants under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. Therefore, such entrustment cannot be justified. 15. Even the Investigation Officer (Dr. U.V. Singh) had not given any show-cause notice to the applicants or taken their statement, before recommending action against the applicants and even the Lokayukta before submitting its report to the Government has not given any opportunity to the applicants to explain their stand. Therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice in the case of the applicants. 16. Therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice in the case of the applicants. 16. Therefore, in our opinion, the entrustment of enquiry against the applicants by the 1st respondent and issue of articles of charge by the 3rd respondent are not only bad in law but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The applications are allowed. (ii) The impugned orders: Order bearing No. Kam.E.08.ADE 2013, dated 6-9-2013 issued by the 1st respondent and articles of charge bearing No. Lok/ARE-4/14A/ENQ-384/2012, dated 8/20-4-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent, are quashed.