Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation, challenged the order dated 29.10.2018 of the Managing Director entrusting a departmental enquiry against them to the Karnataka Lokayukta, and the consequent articles of charge issued by the Lokayukta on 20.12.2018. The petitioners contended that the entrustment was made without prior consultation with the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission, as required under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The respondents argued that the consultation was not mandatory and that the entrustment was valid. The court examined Section 9(3) of the Act, which provides that no such entrustment shall be made except after consultation with the State Vigilance Commission. The court held that the provision is mandatory, and the failure to consult renders the entrustment invalid. Consequently, the articles of charge issued by the Lokayukta were also quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
Headnote
A) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 9(3) - Entrustment of Enquiry - Consultation with Vigilance Commission - The entrustment of a departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta by the Managing Director of the Corporation without prior consultation with the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission is invalid and unsustainable. The court held that the requirement of consultation under Section 9(3) is mandatory and not directory, and failure to consult vitiates the entrustment. (Paras 5-10)
B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Articles of Charge - Validity - Articles of charge issued by the Lokayukta pursuant to an invalid entrustment order are also unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The court held that the consequential action of issuing articles of charge cannot survive if the entrustment itself is invalid. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the entrustment of a departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta by the Corporation without prior consultation with the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission is valid under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure-L) and the consequential articles of charge dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-M) are quashed.
Law Points
- Entrustment of departmental enquiry to Lokayukta requires prior consultation with State Vigilance Commission under Section 9(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984
- Failure to consult renders entrustment invalid
- Articles of charge issued pursuant to invalid entrustment are also unsustainable
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (12) 49
Writ Petition No.8374/2019 (S – RES)
Sri Vijaya Kumar (for petitioners), Sri R.Srinivasa Gowda (AGA for R1), Sri Pavan Kumar for Sri H.Devendrappa (for R2), Sri Venkatesh Arabatti (for R3 and R4)
Shri G.B.Devaraj, Shri B.P.Lingaraju, Shri Ashwathnarayana Swamy
State of Karnataka, The Managing Director Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation, The Karnataka Lokayukta, The Additional Registrar of Enquiries – 13
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the entrustment of departmental enquiry to Lokayukta and consequent articles of charge.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 29.10.2018 of the Managing Director entrusting the enquiry to Lokayukta and the articles of charge dated 20.12.2018 issued by the Lokayukta.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the entrustment was made without prior consultation with the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission as required under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Issues
Whether the entrustment of departmental enquiry to Lokayukta without prior consultation with the State Vigilance Commission is valid under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the entrustment was made without prior consultation with the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission, violating Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Respondents contended that the consultation was not mandatory and the entrustment was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of consultation with the State Vigilance Commission under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 is mandatory. Failure to consult renders the entrustment of enquiry to the Lokayukta invalid, and any consequential action, including issuance of articles of charge, is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 mandates that no entrustment shall be made except after consultation with the State Vigilance Commission.
The failure to consult the State Vigilance Commission before entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta renders the entrustment invalid and unsustainable.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.10.2018 of the Managing Director entrusting the departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta and the consequent articles of charge dated 20.12.2018 issued by the Lokayukta. The matter came up for preliminary hearing before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: Section 9(3)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
