Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka and its Principal Secretary filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1433/2018. The Tribunal had quashed the investigation initiated by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the first respondent, Sri Raghavendra M.R., who was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department on deputation to the Mysore Mahanagara Palike (a local authority). The petitioners argued that the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to investigate the respondent as he was a government servant on deputation. The respondent contended that he was an employee of the local authority and not a 'Government Servant' under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and that no notification had been issued to bring employees of local authorities within the Lokayukta's purview. The court analyzed the definition of 'Government Servant' under Section 2(12) of the Act, which includes only persons in the service of the State Government or a corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, and excludes employees of local authorities unless specifically notified. The court noted that the respondent was substantively employed by the Mysore Mahanagara Palike, a local authority, and was on deputation to the State Government. Since no notification under Section 2(12) had been issued, the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the writ petition and confirming that the Lokayukta cannot investigate employees of local authorities without a notification.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta - Deputation - Section 2(12) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - The issue was whether the Lokayukta could investigate an employee of a local authority who was on deputation from the State Government. The court held that the Lokayukta's jurisdiction under Section 2(12) extends only to 'Government Servants' as defined, and employees of local authorities are not covered unless a notification is issued. Since no notification was issued, the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Deputation - Status of Employee - The court considered the status of an employee on deputation. It held that an employee on deputation remains an employee of the parent department but is under the control of the borrowing department. However, for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Lokayukta Act, the employee's substantive position in a local authority excludes him from the definition of 'Government Servant' under Section 2(12) unless notified. (Paras 2-5) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Definition of 'Government Servant' - Section 2(12) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - The court interpreted the definition of 'Government Servant' under the Act. It held that the definition is exhaustive and does not include employees of local authorities unless the State Government issues a notification to that effect. The absence of such notification means the Lokayukta cannot investigate such employees. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Lokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate an employee of a local authority (Mysore Mahanagara Palike) who is on deputation from the State Government, in the absence of a notification under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 11.06.2020 in Application No.1433/2018 is upheld. The Lokayukta investigation against the first respondent is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Karnataka Lokayukta
- Deputation
- Local Authority
- Interpretation of Section 2(12) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984
- Government Servant definition
- Notification requirement
