Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition against an enquiry initiated by the Karnataka Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The appellant contended that the Upalokayukta had directly issued articles of charges and submitted a report under Section 12(3) without conducting a preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, which is a mandatory prerequisite. The respondents argued that the procedure was valid. The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the parties, examined the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The court noted that Section 12(1) empowers the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta to make a preliminary verification of a complaint, and Section 12(2) requires them to forward the complaint to the competent authority for explanation. Only after such verification and receipt of explanation can an enquiry under Section 12(3) be initiated. In the present case, the Upalokayukta had not conducted any preliminary verification and had directly proceeded to issue articles of charges and submit a report under Section 12(3). The court held that this was a clear violation of the statutory procedure. Consequently, the court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned proceedings, and directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if they so desired.
Headnote
A) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 12(3) - Initiation of Enquiry - Mandatory Preliminary Verification - The court held that before ordering an enquiry under Section 12(3), the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta must conduct a preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Upalokayukta directly issued articles of charges and submitted a report under Section 12(3) without any preliminary verification, which is contrary to the statutory scheme. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the initiation of an enquiry under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, without conducting a preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, is valid in law.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.203924/2018 is set aside. The impugned proceedings initiated by the Upalokayukta are also set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised.
Law Points
- Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984
- preliminary verification
- Section 12(1) and (2)
- mandatory procedure
- initiation of enquiry
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 92
Writ Appeal No.200715/2018 (S-DE)
P.B.Bajanthri, P.G.M.Patil
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande for Sri H. M. Muralidhar, Sri Mallanna Reddy; Sri S. S. Kumman (Special PP for R1 & R2), Sri K.M.Ghate (AGA for R3)
Karnataka Lokayukta, Karnataka Upalokayukta, State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition challenging initiation of enquiry under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.203924/2018 and the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Upalokayukta.
Filing Reason
Appellant contended that the Upalokayukta initiated enquiry under Section 12(3) without conducting mandatory preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 02.11.2018.
Issues
Whether the initiation of enquiry under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, without preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2), is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Upalokayukta directly issued articles of charges and submitted a report under Section 12(3) without any preliminary verification, which is mandatory under Section 12(1) and (2).
Respondents did not appear or argue; the court proceeded based on the record.
Ratio Decidendi
The initiation of an enquiry under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, without conducting a preliminary verification under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, is contrary to the statutory scheme and cannot be sustained. The procedure under Section 12(1) and (2) is mandatory and must be followed before ordering an enquiry under Section 12(3).
Judgment Excerpts
Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, contemplates that the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta may make a preliminary verification of a complaint. Section 12(2) requires them to forward the complaint to the competent authority for explanation. Only after such verification and receipt of explanation can an enquiry under Section 12(3) be initiated.
In the present case, the Upalokayukta has not conducted any preliminary verification and has directly issued articles of charges and submitted a report under Section 12(3). This is contrary to the statutory scheme.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P.No.203924/2018 before the learned Single Judge challenging the enquiry initiated by the Upalokayukta. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 02.11.2018. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench on 11.03.2019 and allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: Section 12(1), Section 12(2), Section 12(3)
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
