Mr.vijaychandra Prabhu B. Vs. State Of Karnataka - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1231868
CourtKarnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided OnMay-14-2020
Case NumberWP 101971/2020
JudgeS.SUJATHA AND JYOTI MULIMANI
AppellantMr.vijaychandra Prabhu B.
RespondentState Of Karnataka
Excerpt:
r in the high court of karnataka dharwad bench dated this the14h day of may, 2020 present the hon’ble mrs. justice s.sujatha and the hon’ble ms. justice jyoti mulimani writ petition no.119515 of2020(s-kat) c/w writ petition nos.119516, 119517, 119518, 119519, 119520, 119521, 119522, 119523 and10197 of2020(s-kat) in wp no.119515 of2020between smt.ranjana suresh patil d/o suresh patil, aged:41. years, assistant public prosecutor-cum- assistant government pleader, civil and jmfc court, bailhongal, belagavi district, r/at: c/o b.s. bangale advocate, sangolli rayanna circle, bailhongal, belagavi district. ... petitioner (by sri jagadish patil, adv.) and1 the state of karnataka rep. by its secretary, home department, vidhana soudha, bengaluru-560001. 22. the director, department of.....
Judgment:

R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF MAY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.119515 OF2020(S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.119516, 119517, 119518, 119519, 119520, 119521, 119522, 119523 AND10197 OF2020(S-KAT) IN WP No.119515 OF2020BETWEEN SMT.RANJANA SURESH PATIL D/O SURESH PATIL, AGED:

41. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, CIVIL AND JMFC COURT, BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT: C/O B.S. BANGALE ADVOCATE, SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2

2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER7962019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.119516 OF2020BETWEEN SRI.VINAYAK S. PATIL S/O S.V. PATIL AGED:

41. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, IV JMFC COURT, NEW COURT COMPLEX, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/AT: NO.43, 2ND MAIN CROSS, 3 RAMKRISHNANAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER9502019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** 4 IN WP No.119517 OF2020BETWEEN SRI SANGANGOUDA NAYAK AGED:

43. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, JMFC COURT, BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001 R/AT C/O SECTOR NO.46, PLOT NO.222, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) 5 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER6752019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.119518 OF2020BETWEEN SMT.SAROJINI VEERAPPA BATAKURKI D/O VEERAPPA BATAKURKI AGED:

47. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BILIGI BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT, R/AT MAIN BAZER LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL BAGALKOT DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 6 M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER6772019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.119519 OF2020BETWEEN SMT.GEETA S. ASUTI D/O SRI SIDDARAMAPPA AGED:

35. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, BEHIND KALABHAVAN, DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001 R/AT HOUSE NO.55/4B, PLOT NO.8, VANASHRI BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, RAJATGIRI, DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,) 7 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER6782019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** 8 IN WP No.119520 OF2020BETWEEN SMT.SHILPA JOSHI, D/O ASHOK AGED:

37. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDALGI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT R/AT C/O R.R.LAKEPPANAVAR LAXMINAGAR, MUDALGI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) 9 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER8192019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.119521 OF2020BETWEEN SRI RAVINDRASA S/O UMAKANTASA AGED:

42. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -CUM- ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IIND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT, R/AT No.30, 32, B-201, 2ND FLOOR, HIRA AVENUE APARTMENT, MAYUR GARDEN, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA10REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER7952019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.119522 OF2020BETWEEN SRI DHANAPAL DEVAPPA HARUGERI, S/O DEVAPPA, AGED:

43. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM -ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IIND JMFC COURT NEAR LOKAYUKTA SP OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT GANGA NILAYA, SECTOR No.11, NEAR MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) 11 AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER6832019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** 12 IN WP No.119523 OF2020BETWEEN SRI BASALINGAPPA BORGAL AGED:

41. YEARS, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM -ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, COURT COMPLEX, ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT R/AT PWD QUARTERS, IB ROAD, ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, 6TH FLOOR,CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING,DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1-R2; SRI SANTHOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3-R4) 13 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

ORDER

OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE

ORDER

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI DATED2011/2019 IN APPLICATION NUMBER6742019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., *** IN WP No.101971 OF2020BETWEEN MR. VIJAYCHANDRA PRABHU B., S/O VENKATESHULU B., AGED ABOUT:

35. YEARS, W/AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT, RESIDING AT C/O RAJASHEKAR KARIMUDDI HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE KONDAEMI SCHOOL VIJAYANAGAR, NEAR RAMMANDIR, GANGAVATHI – 58322. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV.) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 14

2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUTKA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULTISTOREYED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-12 MULTISTOREYED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADV.FOR R1; SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10075/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-J DATED2111.2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.10075/2019 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. *** THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON0403.2020 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDER

THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

15. COMMON

ORDER

Since similar and akin issues are involved, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru/Belagavi (for short, ‘the KSAT’), in applications filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘Act 1985’) challenging the recommendation of the Hon’ble Upalokayukta vide reports under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘Act 1984’) and the order passed by the State of Karnataka entrusting the matter for enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘Rules 1957’) as well as the 16 Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. BACKGROUND FACTS:

3. The petitioners contend that they had appeared for the written examination conducted by the Government of Karnataka through Recruitment Committee, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation, to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader on 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013; petitioners having successfully cleared the written examination and viva voce, got appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor- cum-Assistant Government Pleader vide appointment orders issued by the competent authority. Probation period of the petitioners were declared by the Department of Home, Government of Karnataka on 25.06.2016. A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed before the Trial Court by one Sri H.T.Ravi, an 17 unsuccessful candidate, alleging that accused No.1- Sri Chandrashekar Hiremath, the then Director of Prosecution and accused No.2 - Sri Narayanswamy, staff at the Office of Director of Prosecution, were involved in corruption with respect to recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders. Further the said H.T.Ravi also listed register numbers of 23 candidates alleging corruption with the above said accused Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that the Trial Court referred the private complaint to investigation by Lokayukta Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Lokayukta Police registered the FIR and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the said Lokayukta police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court took cognizance of offences and registered the case in Special C.C.No.305/2017. The Investigation Officer further filed supplementary charge sheet in the above case 18 against sixty-one persons including the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the above said offences and issued summons to all the sixty-one persons including the petitioners herein.

4. When things stood thus, the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta has issued observation note individually dated 28.06.2019 stating that in view of the charge sheet filed by the police authorities against the petitioners and others, the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta by exercising its powers under Section 7 (2) of the Act, 1984, has registered suo- moto cases against the petitioners and called upon to show-cause as to why departmental enquiry should not be initiated against the petitioners along with the copies of charge sheet filed in Special Case No.305/2017, answer sheet referred to therein and 19 the statement of the evaluator. The petitioners furnished a detailed reply to the said observation note/s refuting the allegations made against them as baseless, further raising objections as to jurisdiction of the Karnataka Lokayukta and non-supply of documents referred to in the charge sheet.

5. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta issued report under Section 12(3) of the Act 1984 to the State of Karnataka in order to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners. The State of Karnataka has passed an order under Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957 entrusting the matter to the Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta-1 for conducting an enquiry against the petitioners. Subsequent to which, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta who has framed Article of Charges against the petitioners. Challenging the action of the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta in issuing the report 20 under Section 12(3) of the Act and the State of Karnataka entrusting the proceedings to the Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta-1 for conducting an enquiry under Rule 14-A as well as the Article of Charges framed by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12, the petitioners preferred applications before the KSAT, which came to be rejected. Hence, these writ petitions. Submissions of the petitioners:- 6. The gist of the arguments are that KSAT is not justified in dismissing the applications overlooking the established principles of law. Section 7(2) of the Act should not have been invoked since no grievance or allegation has been made against the public servant before the Upalokayukta and as such the initiation of enquiry by the Upalokayukta is without jurisdiction. It was argued that the complainant, Sri H.T.Ravi has already invoked the jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions 21 Judge under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by filing private complaint. Hence, the Upalokayukta has no power to investigate into the matter in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act 1984. Hence, further consequential orders passed by the concerned authorities suffer with infirmities and the same are liable to be quashed.

7. It was submitted that the petitioners had not occupied the public office at the time of the alleged misconduct, to be termed as public servants within the meaning of ‘public servant’ enumerated under the Act 1984. That the Upalokayukta having issued notice alleging dereliction of duty has referred the matter to the competent authority to initiate further action on the ground of misconduct as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘Rules 1977’). No allegation relating to the misconduct under the Rules, 1977 was imputed in the show-cause notices issued by the Upalokayukta 22 as such, the petitioners had no opportunity to refute the same. It was argued that there is no iota of truth in any of the allegations made by the Investigating Officer even as per the charge sheet filed. That the entire case of the prosecution is solely based on the FSL report which does not support the case of the Investigation Officer. Further no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before submitting report to the Government to have their say in the matter. Inviting the attention of the Court to Section 8(1)(a) Clause(d) of second schedule to the Act 1984, it was contended that there is an absolute bar to conduct any investigation under the Act by the Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayuka in the case inasmuch as the action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants. The action of the Hon’ble Lokayukta in registering a case suo moto runs contrary to the 23 provisions of the Act 1984. Framing of articles of charge against the petitioners based on the illegal report ought to have been considered by the KSAT in a right perspective. Most of the petitioners without the alleged additional marks would still be entitled for selection on merits as there are many other candidates who have been selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government pleader with much lesser marks. Thus, it was argued that the impugned report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta and the consequential Government Order as well as the Article of Charges are issued without jurisdiction much against the material facts and are liable to be quashed. These vital aspects not being appreciated by the KSAT while dismissing the applications, the interference of this Court is warranted. Submissions made on behalf of the Karnataka Lokayukta:

24. 8. Learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath submitted that pursuant to the investigation conducted by the Office of the Lokayukta against the petitioners, who had appeared for the examinations of recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader, departmental enquiry proceedings have been initiated. The challenge made to the initiation of departmental enquiry is baseless. The petitioners sans participating in the departmental enquiry proceedings have rushed to the Tribunal in haste. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold since it is premature to consider the defence of the petitioners at this stage.

9. It was argued that the criminal cases filed against the petitioners are for the alleged violation of law in commission of the alleged offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act whereas the departmental proceedings are initiated against the 25 petitioners for alleged misconduct under Rule 20 of the Rules. Malpractice and unfairness adopted by the petitioners in the written examination amounts to misconduct under Rule 20 of the Rules. It was contended that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta should not conduct any investigation under the Act in case of a complaint involving grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. But in the present set of facts, it is not shown by the petitioners that such action has already been taken against the petitioners in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of the petitioners. Section 8 of the Act is applicable to a compliant involving grievance and not allegations. Investigation initiated against the petitioners is with respect to allegation and not grievance. Therefore, protection sought 26 under clause(d) of the Second Schedule read with Section 8 of the Act is misconceived. Challenge to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and consequential orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority is permissible only (i) where 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; (iv) on account of proven bias and malafides. No such grounds exist warranting interference with the order impugned. Submissions made on behalf of the State Government:- 10. Learned Government Advocate supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted that the malpractices/corrupt practices carried on by the petitioners in recruitment process of APP-cum-AGP27would certainly amenable to the provisions of the Act, more particularly, under Rule 20 of the Rules. Alleged action of corrupt practices to secure the post of APP-cum-AGP touches the consciousness of the Society in general and the persons involved in particular. Such moral turpitude of grave misconduct of a person would disentitle him to hold a civil post. Notwithstanding any criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated under the KCS (CCA) Rules. Lokayukta has competency to initiate suo moto action under Section 7(2) of the Act. Entrustment of the case or issuance of Article of charges are not amenable to challenge either before the KSAT or this court under writ jurisdiction.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to host of judgments and the same are discussed infra along 28 with other relevant judgments applicable to the present set of facts.

12. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration of this Court are: i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Karnataka Upalokayukta had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, 1984?. ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 could be invoked against the petitioners?. iii) Whether clause (d) to Second Schedule read with Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act, 1984 is attracted in the present set of facts?. iv) Whether the principles of natural justice are violated by the 29 Upalokayukta and the State Government in initiating proceedings/ action against the petitioners?. v) Whether the Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquires-12 suffers from infirmities?. JURISDICTION13 It is imperative that question No.(1) in its broader sphere encompasses question Nos.(2) and (3). Firstly, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of Sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Act, 1984 and Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 which reads thus:

14. Section 2 (12) of the Act reads as under: “(12) “Public servant” means a person who is or was at any time,- (a) the Chief Minister; (b) a Minister; (c) a Member of the State Legislature; (d) a Government servant; (e) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of a local authority in the State of Karnataka or a statutory body or corporation 30 established by or under any law of the State Legislature, including a co-operative society, or a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and such other corporations or boards as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest in such corporations or boards, by notification, from time to time, specify; (f) member of a Committee or Board, statutory or non-statutory, constituted by the Government; and (g) a person in the service of pay of,- (i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka; (ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or Corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein by notification, from time to time, specify; (iii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is 31 held by the State Government, or any company which is a subsidiary of such company; (iv) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the Official Gazette; (v) a co-operative Society; (vi) a university; Explanation- In this clause, “co-operative society” means a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and “university” means a university established or deemed to be established by or under any law of the State Legislature.

7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.- (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, an Upalokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant refereed to in sub- section (1), in any case where a complaint 32 involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upalokayukta, recorded in writing. the subject of a grievance or an allegation. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the State Government.

8. Matters not subject to investigation: (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayuktha or an Upa-lokayuktha shall not 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 …..

15. Clause (d) of Second Schedule reads thus:

33. “(d) Action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service.

16. Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 runs as under: “20.Misconduct.- A candidate found guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents or documents which have been tampered with or of making statements which are incorrect or false or of suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his recruitment may in addition to rendering himself liable to a criminal prosecution and to disciplinary action, be debarred either permanently or for a specified period- (a) by the Commission or other recruiting or examining authority from admission to any 34 examination or appearing for any interview for selection of candidates, and (b) by the Government from employment under it.

17. It is significant to note that as per Section 9 of the Act, any person may make a compliant under the Act to the Lokayukta or Upaloyukta as prescribed under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985. Primarily, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are of three fold. Firstly, that the Upalokayukta has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation against the petitioners since they could not be construed as ‘public servants’ in terms of Section (2) (12) of the Act on the date of the alleged misconduct. Secondly, no investigation could be made by the Upalokayukta relating to the matters coming under Section 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Act read with clause (d) of second schedule. Thirdly, in view of the de facto complaint filed under Section 166(3) 35 by the complainant before the jurisdictional court and the matter being ceased of in the said proceedings, invoking the provisions of the Act by the Upalokayukta is barred under Section 8(b) of the Act. In addition to this, arguments were advanced on the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice and on the legality of the Article of Charges framed by the Registrar of Enquries-12.

18. The proceedings have been initiated by the Upalokayuta under Section 7 (2) read with Section 9 suo moto not on the de facto complaint said to have been lodged by the unsuccessful candidate before the jurisdictional Magistrate involving the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

19. Section 9 of the Act reads thus; 9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint 36 under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by an affidavit and in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he,- (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority concerned; (b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; (c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit. (4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, 37 as the case may be, considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if, in his opinion,- (a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; (b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or (c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies. (6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefor and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. (7) The conduct of an investigation [under this Act against a public servant].1 in respect of 38 any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of [any other public servant].1 to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation.

20. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the investigation initiated suo moto by the Upalokayukta, after making the preliminary enquiry as it deemed fit, is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and cannot be held to be barred under the provisions of the Act.

21. It is imperative that the phrase employed in Rule 20 of Rules, 1977 is “candidate”, not ‘public servant’ or ‘government servant’. A candidate found guilty of impersonation of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his/her recruitment may in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to a criminal prosecution and 39 to disciplinary action, be debarred either permanently or for a specified period. Much emphasis was placed on the phrase ‘found guilty’ to contend that the criminal matters are pending before the jurisdictional criminal court where no decision has been rendered regarding the charges levelled against the petitioners or convicting them for the offences alleged. It is well settled law that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.

22. It is settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase and sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself (vide Poppatlal Shah Vs. State of Madras)1 23. It is well settled that a statute cannot be read in isolation, their colour and content are 1 AIR1953SC27440 derived from their context and every work in a statute is to be exercised in its context.

24. In the words of Justice Holmes, “A word is not a crystal transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used”.

25. In the words of Hon’ble Justice Bhagavati as held in Union of India Vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth & others2, a statute has to be read as a whole and in its context.

26. In the Book “principles of statutory interpretation” authored by Justice G.P.Singh, it is quoted thus: “According to Sutherland, there is a basic fallacy in saying that words have meaning in and of themselves”. As could be seen, the context as already discussed supra means, the 2 AIR1977S.C. 2328 41 statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy”. Thus, principles of purposive interpretation would be appropriate and most suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case rather than literal interpretation.

27. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the phrase ‘found guilty’ has to be interpreted in the context of the case. As such, ‘found guilty’ has to be understood as prima facie found guilty to initiate the disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority and not merely on the final verdict of any Court of law. If the arguments of the petitioners is to be accepted as to the final result of the criminal proceedings, the object and purport of the Rules, 1977 to initiate disciplinary proceedings would be defeated. There are umpteen number of cases where the accused person can be acquitted on the benefit of doubt by the criminal court. In such 42 circumstances of acquittal by the criminal court, if the arguments of the petitioners are accepted, it may lead to absurdity rendering the initiation of disciplinary proceedings redundant.

28. In the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. NEELAM NAG AND ANOTHER3, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that there is no legal bar to conduct disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straight jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis.

29. In the case of DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. M.G.VITTAL RAO4, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the issue as to whether 3 (2016) 9 SCC4914 (2012) 1 SCC44243 disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when the delinquent employee is facing criminal trial, has been considered from time to time. Referring to STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B.K.MEENA5, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it would be evident from the decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’, ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. If a criminal case is unduly 5 (1996) 6 SCC41744 delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interest of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. It is held that the disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. 45 It is not in the interest of administration alone but it serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest too.

30. The purpose of departmental enquiry and prosecution being two different and distinct aspects, i.e., the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service, pendency of the criminal proceedings lodged for an offence for violation of duty would not be a ground to deny the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the arguments of the petitioners that the Upalokayukta had no jurisdiction/competence to initiate proceedings against the petitioners is negated.

31. Clause (d) of the Second Schedule read with Section 8 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case as the Upalokayukta has invoked suo moto proceedings against the petitioners not considering the grievances relating to the appointments. Grievance and allegations being different, the 46 provisions of Section 8(1)(a) and (b) cannot be pressed, to deny the jurisdiction of the Upalokayukta. Natural Justice:

32. In the case of GOPAL HANUMANTH KASE VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS6, the coordinate bench of this court has held thus: “In our view, at the given stage of entrusting the matter for inquiry, the Government, as the Competent Authority, was not expected to enter into a detailed or even a summary inquiry with consideration of reply/defence of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 07.12.2017, read as a whole, makes it clear that the satisfaction of the Competent Authority about existence of the prima facie case has been indicated therein and that had been sufficient compliance of the requirement of law.” 6 ILR2018KAR234747 33. The said judgment has reached finality. Thus, the contents of the report made under Section 12 (3) of the Act and the order passed by the Government, as the competent authority for entrusting the matter to the Upalokayukta for institution of departmental enquiry cannot be said to be suffering from non-application of mind. The gist and substance of the report made by the Upalokayutha has been considered by the Government while deciding to entrust the matter under Section 14 of the Act for investigation to Upalokayukta. Indeed, notices were issued to the petitioners to which reply/objections were filed by them denying the allegations made against them. The same not being found to be acceptable so as to drop the proceedings, reports were submitted before the State Government under the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act, as such no infraction of the 48 principles of natural justice is found in the action of the State Government/Upalokayukta. Article of Charges:

34. It is well settled law that Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12 would indicate the allegations/charges levelled against the petitioners which has not reached the final stage of adjudication and decision. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL DIRECTOR VS. MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE7 has held thus: “5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, 7 (2004 (3) SCC440, 49 writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.

35. The Article of Charges would not be conclusive of the charges levelled against the petitioners, the Tribunal or the Court could not analyze these factors at the stage in as much as 50 whether the said charges are true or could be gone into which necessarily requires to be adjudicated upon the production of evidence at the time of enquiry. It is for the delinquent officials to file objections and to contest the matter in the enquiry proceedings.

36. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in VIJAY KUMAR G.SULAKHE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS8 has held that ordinarily application/petition before the Tribunal or writ Court does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a 8 W.P.No.104460/2018 & connected matters D.D.10.9.2018 51 grievance or cause of action. Therefore, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA9 wherein paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 of the said judgment read thus: “8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide 9 (2012) 11 SCC56552 State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.) 10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge- sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge- sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.) 53 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.

37. Thus, it has been held that the entrustment of the case by the State Government under Rule 14A of the KCSRs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and Article of Charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayukta is not a ground to file applications before the KAT to challenge the 54 same which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. ANALYSIS38 Having regard to the words “who is or was at any time” as enumerated in Section 2(12) of the Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners would certainly come within the ambit of public servant as defined in clause(12) of Section 2 of the Act since indisputably, on the date of initiating proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, they were the public servants. Hence, applying Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 which employs the phrase “candidates” and public servant as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, it can be held that the petitioners not holding the public office as on the date of the alleged misconduct, would not disentitle the Upalokayukta to initiate investigation proceedings against them. 55

39. Section 9 of the Act, 1984 empowers the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta to conduct any investigation under the Act, after making such preliminary enquiry as it deemed fit to initiate investigation suo moto under Sub Sections (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section 7. Such exercise of suo-moto power by Upalokayukta after forwarding the opinion recorded by him to initiate such investigation, duly following the principles of natural justice as required, cannot be held to be unjustifiable.

40. In the case of KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS10, the coordinate bench of this Court while considering Section 9 of the Act has held that Section 9 of the Act is not a provision of appeal but it is in the nature of original jurisdiction. This judgment was rendered in 10 (2015 (6) KLJ381 56 the context of the case where a recommendation must be made to the Competent Authority to redress the grievance of the complaint by canceling the mining lease and the licence of the petitioner if already granted or to reject application for renewal of mining lease and also to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the violation of provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As aforesaid, the proceedings hereunder not being initiated on any complaint made by any person but under Section 9 (3) initiating suo moto proceedings, the said judgment would be of little assistance to the petitioners herein.

41. In the case of DR. K.LALITHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS11, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has observed that if Lokayukta or Upalokayukta is satisfied that allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by 11 (2019 (4) KLJ344 57 report communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents and materials and other evidence to the Competent Authority. On receipt of such report, the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 12 shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3). Firstly, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall be satisfied that there are material documents and other evidence. Secondly, the Competent Authority shall examine the report forwarded to it in relation to the allegations made. There is no cavil on this legal proposition.

42. In the case of R.V.JATTANNA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.Nos.105359/2019 and connected matters (DD3001.2020), another co-ordinate bench of this court has held that the report under Section 12 (3) of the Act would be sent by Upalokayukta after satisfying himself that the allegations are wholly or 58 partially true and after expressing his satisfaction he would send a report under the above said provisions. Therefore, when a highest functionary of the said institution and particularly after taking into consideration the above said criterias, sends a report, such report should not be in any manner taken by any person in a casual manner, lot of sanctity and weightage is attached to such reports. Thus, the Government which has the power as parent prageria of almost all the employees of the government department and other public servants who work in various other public institutions, to receive the report submitted by Lokayukta/Upalokayukta under Section 12 (3) is empowered to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta if any further disciplinary enquiry to be conducted. The Government has all the powers which the disciplinary authority has got to refer the matter to the Upalokayukta to conduct the disciplinary enquiry 59 and to report back to the government. It is categorically observed that there is absolutely no illegality or irregularity committed by the government in receiving the preliminary investigation report under Section 12 (3) of the Act and thereafter again referring the matter to the Upalokayukta for conducting the disciplinary enquiry.

43. In the case of M.A.Partha Sarathy v/s The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and others12, learned Single Judge of this court has observed thus:

26. Therefore, under the scheme of the ” Act, the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta are conferred power to investigate into a complaint involving a grievance or allegation against a public servant. Section 7 deals with the power and the subject matter of investigation by the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta. The grievance or the allegation should be in respect of an action as defined under the Act. The jurisdiction of Lokayukta and UPa lokayukta do not extend beyond what is specifically contained in Section 7 of the act. They have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a person other than a public servant as defined under the Act. He has not been conferred any power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a private individual. He has 12 ILR2009KAR221660 not been conferred the power to investigate into the title of the property standing in the name of a private individual. He has not been conferred any power to go into the validity of a sale deed, a Will, a gift deed executed by a private individual in favour of another private individual, on the ground that the said subject matter of the alienation is a public property. They are all matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Lokayuktha cannot usurp the power of civil Court under the guise of investigation under the Act. The investigation to be conducted is only with reference to the action of the public servant, and the abuse of such office, allegations of corruption, nepotism, lack of integrity on the part of public servant, and any illegal gains made by such public servant.” The grievance of the complainant therein was that the disputed land belongs to the Forest Department, Government of Karnataka. One Sri M.A.Srinivasan had created documents showing that the said land has been purchased by him in pursuance of a sale deed executed by the personal secretary of the Maharaja No specific complaint by name being made against any public servant responsible for the actions complained, the writ court has held that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to 61 investigate the title of the petitioner therein, relating to the disputed property in their absence. Hence, though there is no cavil on the legal proposition, the said judgment would be of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is well settled by series of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet/show cause notice. A mere charge sheet/show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action. CONCLUSION: In the light of the judgments referred to above and for the reasons aforesaid, the view of the KSAT cannot be held to be unjustifiable. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. No illegality or irregularity is found in the action of the 62 State Government in receiving the report under Section 12(3) of the Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta and thereafter referring the matter to the Upa Lokayukta for conducting displinery enquiry. Hence, the writ petitions fail and accordingly stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court, while deciding the writ petitions, shall not influence the inquiry officer/disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer shall take decision independently and strictly in accordance with law. All the pending IAs stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CLK/JTR/DVR