Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Mallayya Koravanavar, an Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Karnataka State Government, filed a writ petition challenging a Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting an inquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta and an order dated 05-05-2022 granting sanction for his prosecution. The petitioner was appointed as an Agriculture Officer in 2002 and later promoted. Complaints arose regarding lapses in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). The Government, without following the procedure under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval before any inquiry into offences alleged against a public servant, entrusted the inquiry to the Lokayukta. Subsequently, the Lokayukta submitted a report, and the Commissioner of Agriculture granted sanction for prosecution. The petitioner argued that the entrustment order was invalid as it bypassed the mandatory requirement of Section 17A. The respondents contended that the order was valid. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the Government Order entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta was issued without complying with Section 17A of the PC Act, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the sanction order based on such an inquiry was also quashed. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for consequential benefits, including promotion, in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 17A - Requirement of Prior Approval - The court examined whether the entrustment of inquiry to Lokayukta and the sanction for prosecution were valid. Held that the Government Order entrusting inquiry to Lokayukta was issued without following the procedure under Section 17A of the PC Act, which mandates prior approval before any inquiry into offences alleged against a public servant. The sanction order was also quashed as it was based on an invalid inquiry. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Delegation of Powers - Validity of Government Order - The Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta was challenged. The court found that the order was passed without proper application of mind and without complying with the statutory requirements. Held that such delegation is unsustainable and the order is liable to be quashed. (Paras 3-8) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Consequential Benefits - The petitioner sought consequential benefits after quashing of the sanction order. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion and other benefits in accordance with law, as the impugned orders were set aside. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta and the subsequent sanction order dated 05-05-2022 are valid in law, particularly in light of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting the inquiry to the Lokayukta and the order dated 05-05-2022 granting sanction for prosecution are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for consequential benefits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 must be granted by competent authority after considering material
- Entrustment of inquiry to Lokayukta without prior approval under Section 17A is invalid
- Government order delegating inquiry to Lokayukta without following procedure is unsustainable
