Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by the Upalokayukta under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application No.10264/2022. The Tribunal had quashed a Government Order dated 19.11.2021 by which the State Government imposed on respondent No.1 a penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and deferring promotion by four years. Respondent No.1 was working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Urdu Model School at Jamkhandi, Bagalkot District. The disciplinary proceedings originated from a complaint dated 16.09.2015 lodged by one Dastagir Navisab Korabu before the Lokayukta, alleging that the Secretary of Terdal Minority Credit Co-operative Society had fabricated documents to show the complainant and four other Government servants as weavers and had obtained loans under the weavers' quota for his own benefit. The complainant and the four others named in the complaint were Government servants, including respondent No.1. The complaint was referred for preliminary enquiry, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta submitted a report on 03.09.2016 concluding that there was no substance in the allegations against the Secretary. The report, forwarded on 26.09.2016, suspected that the complainant and the other Government servants might themselves be at fault. The Assistant Registrar of Lokayukta then forwarded a copy of the complaint to respondent No.1 on 10.11.2016, requiring his reply, which he submitted on 02.12.2016. On 18.02.2017, the Upalokayukta recommended enquiry against seven Government servants including the original complainant and respondent No.1. Articles of charge were issued on 03.08.2017 against respondent No.1 and one Daud Lal Sab Yadwad, alleging that they had taken loans from the Society by showing themselves as weavers though not engaged in weaving, thereby violating Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Rules), 1966. During the enquiry, Daud Lal Sab Yadwad successfully challenged the charge sheet before the Tribunal in Application No.2399/2018, which was quashed on 17.02.2020. The enquiry against respondent No.1 continued, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 13.10.2020 holding him guilty. The Upalokayukta recommended penalty on 15.10.2020, and after issuing notice, the Government imposed the penalty by order dated 19.11.2021. Respondent No.1 challenged that order before the Tribunal, which quashed it on 04.01.2023 on two grounds: non-compliance with Sections 7 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 due to non-furnishing of the Upalokayukta's opinion, and inordinate delay of more than 11 years in initiating the enquiry. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in P. V. Mahadevan, Bani Singh, N. Radhakishan, and Uco Bank. In the High Court, the petitioner Upalokayukta argued that the enquiry was complaint-based and not suo motu, so no separate opinion was required to be furnished, and that the delay was explained because the complainant learned of the loan transaction only later and filed the complaint in 2015. The High Court considered the submissions and examined the preliminary enquiry report, noting that the initial complaint targeted only the Secretary but the enquiry report shifted suspicion to the complainant and other Government servants. The available text does not contain the final decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Initiation Under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Sections 7, 9 - Requirement of Furnishing Upalokayukta's Opinion - The Tribunal quashed the penalty order holding that initiation of enquiry was without following Sections 7 and 9 of the Act because the Upalokayukta's opinion was not furnished to the delinquent officer. The petitioner Upalokayukta contended that the enquiry arose from a complaint and not suo motu, so no separate opinion was required to be furnished. The High Court noted that the initial complaint targeted only the Secretary of the Society, but the preliminary enquiry report shifted suspicion to the complainant and other Government servants including respondent No.1. Final determination on this ground was not stated in the available excerpt (Paras 3-7). B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Disciplinary Enquiry Delayed Beyond 11 Years - Precedents on Unexplained Delay - The Tribunal held that initiation of enquiry was hit by delay of more than 11 years from the date of incident to initiation, relying on P. V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 738; State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154; and Uco Bank v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC 92. The petitioner argued that loan transaction was of 2006 but complainant came to know later and filed complaint in 2015. The High Court noted the delay argument and the precedents, but final determination was not stated in the available excerpt (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal was justified in quashing the Government Order dated 19.11.2021 on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 7 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary enquiry
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Sections 7 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984 govern initiation of disciplinary enquiry and furnishing of Upalokayukta's opinion
- Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Rules)
- 1966 prescribes conduct of Government servants
- disciplinary proceedings may be quashed for unexplained delay and laches based on P. V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director
- Tamil Nadu Housing Board
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan
- Uco Bank v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla
