Lokayukta, UpaLokayukta Are Merely Recommendatory Bodies, Can't Direct For Enquiry To Be Entrusted To Them: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government possesses the power to entrust the handling of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rule.

Further, it held that the recommendation by the Lokayukta to the Government, while making a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, that the enquiry be entrusted to it, cannot be sustained.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda made the observation while partly allowing the petition filed by one Yathish M G, a Senior Environmental Officer working with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

The petitioner had challenged the order dated 07.09.2023, by which the State Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, has entrusted the conduct of the departmental enquiry initiated against him to the UpaLokayukta.

The primary contention of the petitioner was that the State Government could not exercise its powers under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules against him since he is an employee of the Board, which is governed by its own cadre and recruitment regulations. It was contended that the power to entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is available only in respect of Government servants and not in respect of the employees of Statutory Boards.

The board supported the petitioner contending that since the Board had got the matter examined in detail and had also secured a report that there were no lapses on the part of the petitioner, the Board was justified in requesting the Government to drop the proceedings.

The Government submitted that it being the ultimate authority in respect of not only a Government servant but also in respect of the employees of the statutory Boards, did possess the power to entrust the enquiry in respect of any alleged misconduct of an employee of either the Government or a statutory Board to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta.

Further, it was stated that the definition of a “government servant” under the CCA Rules includes not only a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka but also a person who holds a Civil Post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka.

It was argued that since any person who holds a Civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka is also considered as a Government servant, a person holding a Civil Post in a statutory Board would necessarily be working in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and he would thus be a Government servant for the purposes of the CCA Rules.

It was said “Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules provides for entrusting the enquiry in respect of Government servant if the misconduct alleged has been investigated into by the Lokayukta, either under the provisions of the Lokayukta Act or by the reference of the Government, and this itself indicates that if the conduct of a Government servant including an employee of the statutory Board is investigated, then the Government has been conferred with the power under Rule 14-A to direct an enquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the UpaLokayukta, or direct the appropriate authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12 of the CCA Rules.”

It then said that if the provisions of the CCA Rules are expressly made applicable to the employees of the Board, it is obvious that Rule 14-A would also stand automatically attracted in respect of an employee of the Board.

Noting that Rule 14A of the CCA Rules makes an exception in the matter of instituting disciplinary, the court said that by virtue of the non-obstante clause, this Rule permits the State Government to be the Authority, not only to institute the proceedings but also to entrust the enquiry either to the Lokayukta, the Upa-Lokayukta or the Disciplinary Authority.

Following which it held “It is, therefore, clear that in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, in the face of Regulation 34(A1), the Government would have the power to entrust the enquiry to the Lokayukta and it is not the Disciplinary Authority of the employee-Board.”

Court said that on a plain reading of Section 12(3) and (4) of the Lokayukta Act, it was obvious that the power to make a recommendation in respect of allegation vests with the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, which is only a recommendatory body and cannot enforce its decision.

It said, “If the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta were to say that it should be given the power to take remedial action by itself, that would basically be in contravention of Section 12(4) of the Lokayukta Act and it would translate into the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta to transform itself into an enforcement body as against the contemplation of the Act that it is only a recommendatory body.”

Disposing of the petition court said that the State Government would be at liberty to apply its mind independently to the recommendation, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner and take a decision as to whether the enquiry is required to be entrusted to the Lokayukta, the Upa-Lokayukta or the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.

Appearance: Advocate Raghavendra.G.Gayathri for Petitioner.

AGA B.Ravindranath FOR R-1.

Advocate Gururaj Joshi FOR R-2.

Advocate Ashwin S Halady FOR R-3.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153

Case Title: Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order