Karnataka High Court Hears Writ Petition Against Government Order Entrusting Disciplinary Enquiry of Municipal Employees to Upa-lokayukta; Interprets Scope of Section 12 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Court Examines Whether Municipal Employees Fall Within the Ambit of 'Public Servant' and Extent of Government's Power to Refer Disciplinary Enquiry to Upa-lokayukta.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petitioners, employees of Town Municipal Councils in Karwar and Dandeli, challenged a government order dated 28.07.2018 and a report of the Upa-lokayukta dated 28.04.2018. The Upa-lokayukta, after a preliminary enquiry, found a prima facie case for disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and recommended that the State Government entrust the matter to the Lokayukta for the enquiry. The Government accepted the recommendation and referred the matter to the Upa-lokayukta for disciplinary enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. The petitioners contended that under Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Government could only receive the report and intimate the action taken or proposed, but could not refer the enquiry back to the Upa-lokayukta. They argued that as municipal employees governed by separate rules, they were not government servants and the Government lacked jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the Government, as the superior authority, had implied power to refer the matter for enquiry, and that such reference fell within the meaning of 'proposed action' under Section 12(4). The court examined the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(12) of the Act and held that the petitioners, being employees of a local authority, fell squarely within the definition, irrespective of the nomenclature under the Karnataka Municipalities Rules. The court then commenced analysis of Section 12, but the judgment text provided ends abruptly while quoting the provision. Therefore, the final reasoning, decision, and any directions of the court are not available in the provided record.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government, upon receiving a report from Upa-lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, can entrust the matter back to Upa-lokayukta for a disciplinary enquiry, or whether its power is limited to intimating action taken under Section 12(4); and whether municipal employees are public servants under the Act thereby subjecting them to such proceedings.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Interpretation of Section 12(3) and 12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
  • definition of public servant under Section 2(12) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
  • applicability of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules
  • 2010
  • scope of government's power to refer disciplinary enquiry to Upa-lokayukta
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (01) 41

WRIT PETITION NO.105359 OF 2019 AND WRIT PETITION NO.114148 OF 2019

2020-01-30

K.N. Phaneendra, Pradeep Singh Yerur

J.S. Shetty (for petitioners), G.K. Hiregoudar (for R1), Santosh B. Malagoudar (for R2 & R4)

R. V. Jattanna and Mohanraj

State of Karnataka, Upa-lokayukta-1, Shrikant Ira Banvayekar, DYSP Karnataka Lokayukta

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a government order and a report of the Upa-lokayukta that led to a disciplinary enquiry against municipal employees.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the government order dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure-A) and the Upa-lokayukta's report dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure-B) insofar as it pertained to them.

Filing Reason

The Upa-lokayukta, after a preliminary enquiry, submitted a report finding a prima facie case for disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners; the State Government, accepting the report, entrusted the matter back to the Upa-lokayukta for conducting the disciplinary enquiry. Petitioners contended that the government lacked jurisdiction to so entrust the matter.

Previous Decisions

Not mentioned (Upa-lokayukta's preliminary enquiry report and government's entrustment order were administrative actions, not court decisions).

Issues

Whether the State Government, after receiving a report from the Upa-lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, can refer the matter back to the Upa-lokayukta for a disciplinary enquiry, or whether its power is confined to intimating action taken under Section 12(4). Whether employees of a Town Municipal Council, governed by the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, are 'public servants' under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Whether the government is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action against municipal employees, and whether the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, apply to them.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that under Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the government could only receive the report and intimate action taken or proposed; it could not entrust the disciplinary enquiry back to the Upa-lokayukta. They contended that as municipal employees governed by separate rules, they were not government servants and thus the government lacked jurisdiction. Respondents argued that the government, as superior authority, had implied power under 'proposed action' in Section 12(4) to refer the matter to Upa-lokayukta for enquiry, and that such referral prevents disciplinary authorities from nullifying the report. They relied on Rule 14-A of CCA Rules.

Judgment Excerpts

the Upa-lokayukta/2nd respondent, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, submitted his report on 28.04.2018 holding that a prima-facie case has been made out for the purpose of conducting disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners the petitioners also fall under the category of public servants as per the above said provision irrespective of the nomenclature given to him under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010

Procedural History

Upa-lokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report dated 28.04.2018 finding a prima facie case against the petitioners. State Government passed order dated 28.07.2018 entrusting the matter to Upa-lokayukta for disciplinary enquiry. Petitioners filed the instant writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which came up for preliminary hearing on 30.01.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Lokayukta Act: 2(12), 12, 12(3), 12(4)
  • Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010: Rule 11
  • Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957: Rule 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in University Lecturer Appointment Case - Quashes Chancellor's Order Rejecting Selection Committee Recommendation. Chancellor's order found unsustainable due to exceeding scope of remand, absence of specific qualifications...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Petition Challenging Gratuity Award in Date of Birth Fraud Case. Forfeiture of Gratuity Under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Not Applicable as Misconduct Did Not Involve Moral Turpitude or ...