Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged a report of the Upa-Lokayukta dated 08.02.2016 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending a disciplinary inquiry against him, and the consequential order of the State Government dated 23.02.2016. The High Court examined the report and found that it was not signed by the Upa-Lokayukta. The court held that a report under Section 12(3) must be signed by the Upa-Lokayukta personally; an unsigned report is invalid and cannot be acted upon. Consequently, the court quashed both the report and the government order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 12(3) - Report - Signature Requirement - Report under Section 12(3) must be signed by Upa-Lokayukta personally - Unsigned report is invalid and cannot be acted upon by competent authority - Held that the report dated 08.02.2016 was not signed by Upa-Lokayukta and therefore invalid - Consequently, the order of the State Government dated 23.02.2016 based on such report is also invalid (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, which is not signed by the Upa-Lokayukta, is valid and can be acted upon by the competent authority.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; Upa-Lokayukta report dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure-F) and State Government order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-G) are quashed.
Law Points
- Report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984 must be signed by Upa-Lokayukta personally
- Unsigned report is invalid and cannot be acted upon by competent authority
- Competent authority cannot pass order based on invalid report
