: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/236814/… · m.s. building, ambedkar veedhi, benglauru-560001. 2. honble

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WP NO.104460/2018, C/W WP NOs.104461/2018 AND

104462/2018 [S-KAT] IN WP No.104460/2018 BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE S/O GURUNATH RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER, GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GADAG. R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA, SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.

2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY

R

: 2 :

REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11 AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE

ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE

KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN

APPLICATION NO.5018/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE

WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION

NO.5018/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.

IN WP No.104461/2018 BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE S/O GURUNATH RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER, GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GADAG. R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA, SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV. AND SRI. PRITHVI K.S., ADV.)

: 3 :

AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA


2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.











IN WP NO.104462/2018 BETWEEN: V.P. KATWAL S/O PRATAPSINGH KATEWAL AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

: 4 :

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GAJENDRAGAD, RESIDING AT PACHAKSARANAGAR, BEHIND K.V.S.R. COLLEGE, GADAG-582101.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA


2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.











: 5 :

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

These writ petitions are filed against the order

dated 26.06.2018 made in application Nos. 5018/2018,

5019/2018 and 5020/2018 rejecting the applications of

the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation.

2. The petitioner Sri. Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe

filed the application in Nos.5018/2018 and 5019/2018

before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short

“KAT”) challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per

Annexure-A15 for entrustment of the case under Rule

14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to

as the KCSs(CCA) Rules, 1957 for short) by the

Government and articles of charge issued dated

14.09.2017 as per Annexure-A16 by the Additional

Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and also

challenged the entrustment order dated 22.12.2016 as

: 6 :

per Annexure-A20 by the Government and articles of

charge issued by the third respondent, the Additional

Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer dated

07.08.2017 as per Anneuxre-21 in respect of the two

charges.

3. Sri. V.P. Katewal filed an application in

No.5020/2018 challenging the order dated 17.05.2017

as per Annexure-A6 by the State Government for

entrustment of the case to the Lokayuktha and article of

charges dated 14.09.2017 as per Anneuxre-A7 issued

by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka

Lokayuktha.

I. Facts of the case :

4. It is the case of the petitioner Sri. Vijaya

Kumar G. Sulakhe that he was appointed as daily wage

employee in the Gadag Betageri Municipality in the year

1981 and the service came to be regularized on

27.11.1996 to the post of Junior Health Inspector at

: 7 :

Gadag Betageri Municipality w.e.f. 02.11.1991 and the

petitioner Sri. V.P. Katewal was working as Town

Municipal Council, Gajendragad. The things to thus :

One Mr. Huligeppa S. Bandiwaddar filed the complaint

on 13.12.2012 before the Lokayuktha alleging that the

irregularities in the civil work carried out at Town

Panchayath, Naregal. The Lokayuktha conducted the

investigation in pursuance of the said complaint,

prepared a preliminary investigation report. On the

basis of the report submitted by the Lokayuktha, the

State Government exercising the powers under Section

14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 has entrusted the

matter to the Lokayuktha for conducting disciplinary

enquiry proceedings against the petitioners. On the

basis of the said entrustment, the third respondent –

the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry

Officer, Lokayuktha issued articles of charge to both the

petitioners on 14.09.2017. Therefore, the petitioners

have filed the applications stated supra before KAT

: 8 :

challenging both the entrustment order and articles of

charges issued by the respondents.

5. The KAT considering the entire material on

record by the impugned common order dated

26.06.2018 rejected the applications filed by the

petitioners on merits as well as on limitation. Hence,

the present writ petitions are filed.

II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the parties :

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties to the lis.

7. Sri. Basavaraj Bannur, the learned counsel

for the petitioners in all the writ petitions vehemently

contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT

rejecting the applications are erroneous, contrary to

law. He would further contended that the specific

grounds urged by the petitioners before KAT are that

the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners

: 9 :

during discharge of their duties as Municipal servants.

Hence, the State Government has no jurisdiction to hold

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. He

would further contended that Sri. Vijay Kumar V.

Salukhe has become Government servant only on

10.10.2014 by the order dated 10.10.2014 as per

Annexure-A5, prior to that he was not a Government

servant. Therefore, the initiation of departmental

enquiry by the State Government is totally without

jurisdiction.

8. He further contended that the articles of

charge issued by the third respondent - the Additional

Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer,

Karnataka Lokayuktha dated 14.09.2017 is without

authority of law as he is not a disciplinary authority and

he has not obtained any prior approval from the first

respondent to the articles of charges. Therefore, the

very proceedings of entrustment made by the

Government and issuance of articles of charge by the

: 10 :

Registrar of Enquiries and Enquiry Officer, Lokayuktha

is totally without jurisdiction.

9. He would further contended that the

investigation Officer did not given reasonable

opportunities to the applicants before submitting the

investigation report to the State Government and there

is a delay in issuance of articles of charges and the

charges are not specific. Therefore, he sought to allow

the writ petitions by quashing the impugned order

passed by the KAT.

10. Per contra, Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, the

learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri.

Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, the learned counsel for

the second and third respondent sought to justify the

impugned order passed by the KAT. They would further

contended that the State Government exercising the

powers under provisions of Rule 14A of the KCSs (CCA)

Rules, 1957 has entrusted the matter to the

Upalokayukta. Based on the said entrustment, the

: 11 :

Upalokayuktha has issued articles of charges.

Therefore, the very applications filed against the

entrustment of case to the Additional Registrar of

Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and issuance of

articles of charges are not maintainable in view of the

dictum of this Court in the case of Mr.Jayaprakash

S/o.Late Ramesh V/s. State of Karnataka, the

Secretary, Panchayath and Rural Development

made in writ petition No.23522/2016 vide order dated

04.10.2016 and also in the case of Dr. Praveen Kumar

S/o. Late. D.M. Balakrishna V/s. The State of

Karnataka, R/p by its Secretary to Horticulture

Department made in W.P. No.101441/2018 vide order

dated 18.06.2018.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents

further contended that the third applicant/petitioner

Sri. V.P. Katewal was a Government servant.

Therefore, he has no grievance against the entrustment

and the articles of charge issued by the respondents

: 12 :

and the counsel for the respondents sought for

dismissal of the writ petitions.

III. Points for determination :

12. In view of the above rival contentions urged

by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that

arise for consideration in the present writ petitions are :

1. Whether the entrustment of the case by

the State Government under Rule 14A of

the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the

articles of charge issued by the Additional

Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka

Lokayuktha can be a ground to file

application before the KAT to challenge

the same ?

2. Whether the petitioners have made out

any ground to interfere with the

impugned order passed by the KAT

exercising the powers under Article 226

and 227 of Constitution of India ?

: 13 :

IV. For consideration :

13. We have given our thoughtful consideration

to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the parties, and perused the entire materials on record

carefully.

14. It is an undisputed fact that on the basis of

the complaint filed by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar

Bandiwaddar before the Lokayukta alleging

irregularities in the civil works carried out at Town

Panchayath, Naregal, the Lokayuktha conducted the

investigation in respect of the alleged civil works and

prepared a preliminary investigation report and

submitted to the Government on 04.06.2015, alleging

irregularities committed by the present petitioners and

others and spent unnecessary Rs.95.24 lakhs towards

expenditure. Based on the said report, the State

Government by the order dated 17.05.2017 exercising

the powers under the provisions of Rule 14A of

KCSs(CCA) Rules entrusted the matter to the Upa-

: 14 :

Lokayuktha. Based on the said entrustment, the

Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka

Lokayuktha issued articles of charges.

15. The main grievance of the petitioners is that

some of the petitioners are not Government employees

as on the date of the report submitted by the Upa-

Lokayuktha and the Government has no jurisdiction to

entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha for enquiry.

It is only disciplinary authority has to proceed with the

disciplinary enquiry, and the articles of charges issued

by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, is totally

without jurisdiction.

16. For better understanding, it is relevant to

know the definition of “competent authority”, “public

servant” defined under the provisions of Karnataka

Lokayuktha Act, 1984. Section 2(4) of the Karnataka

Lokayuktha Act, 1984 reads as under:

“2. Definitions –

: 15 :

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) xxx

(4) “Competent authority” in relation to a

public servant means. –

(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a

member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion;

(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary,

the Chief Minister;

(c) in the case of a Government servant

other than a Secretary, the government of Karnataka;

(d) in the case of any other public

servant, such authority as may be prescribed;”

17. The public servant defined under the

provisions of Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka

Lokayuktha Act reads as under :

xxxxx

“(12) “public servant” means a person who is or was at any time,-

(a) xxx

: 16 :

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) xxx

(e) xxx

(f) xxx

(g) A person in the service or pay of,

(i) a local authority in the State

of Karnataka;

(ii) a statutory body or a

corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act,

owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by

notification, from time to time, specify;

(iii) a company registered under

the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company

which is a subsidiary of such company’

(iv) a society registered or

deemed to have been

: 17 :

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of

the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the official Gazette’

(v) a co-operative society’

(vi) a university;”

18. A combined reading of the said provisions

makes it very clear that in the case of any other public

servant, such authority as may be prescribed or a

person in the service or of in a local authority in the

State of Karnataka. The provisions of the Lokayuktha

Act has to be applied because of the applicability of the

rules of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of

Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 to the services of

the petitioners. Even under the said rules, it was made

clear that the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 do apply in regard to

the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.

The applicability of the said rules 1957 is distinctly

: 18 :

stated in Clause (1) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka

Municipalities Rules, 2010, which reads as under :

11. Application of certain other rules – Without prejudice to these rules, the provisions of .-

(1) The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 shall apply subject to modifications specified in Schedule III.

19. Of course, under the said clause (1) of Rule

11, the Rules of 1957 apply to the employees like the

petitioners subject to the modifications specified in

Schedule III to the Rules of 2010. But, such

modifications in Schedule III have no bearing on the

subject matter of these petitions. Under the said

Schedule-III, only the authorities, who are competent to

impose punishment, as also the Appellate Authorities

have been specified. Such provisions do not, in any

manner, nullify or override the effect of the Act of 1984

and the Rules made thereunder. In view of the above

said provisions of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, KCSs

(CCA) Rules, 1957 and Karnataka Municipalities

: 19 :

(Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010,

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the State Government is not a competent authority

to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and the

Upa-Lokayuktha has no jurisdiction to issue articles of

charges, cannot be accepted and required to be rejected.

20. It is also not in dispute that the Upa-

Lokayuktha had given opportunity to the petitioners

before submitting a report to the State Government

under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Karnataka

Lokayuktha Act and after giving sufficient opportunity

to the petitioners to submit their objections, and

thereafter submitted the report. Admittedly, the present

petitioners have participated in the enquiry proceedings

and when the matter was posted for cross-examination

of witnesses by the delinquent officials, at that stage,

the petitioners sought for adjournment for cross-

examination of the witness and the matter was

adjourned and thereafter, they have filed applications

: 20 :

before the KAT challenging the very entrustment by the

Government and issuance of articles of charge. Once

the petitioners participated in the enquiry proceedings

without raising the locus of the State or the Upa-

Lokayukha to proceed against the petitioners, it is not

open for them to challenge the same after participation

and the applications filed before the KAT by the

petitioners is an after thought, liable to be rejected in

view of the Law of estoppel under the provisions of 115

of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:

“S.115. When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted

another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while

considering the provisions of Section 115 of the

Evidence Act in the case of Ashok Kumar and another

V/s. State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4

SCC 357 at para Nos.13, 14, 17 and 18 held as under:

: 21 :

“13. The law on the subject has been

crystallized in several decisions of this

Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v.

Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the

principle that when a candidate appears at

an examination without objection and is

subsequently found to be no successful, a

challenge to the process is precluded. The

question of entertaining a petition

challenging an examination would not arise

where a candidate has appeared and

participate. He or she cannot subsequently

turn around and contend that the process

was unfair or that there was a lacuna

therein, merely because the result is not

palatable. In Union of India v. S Vinodh

Kumar, this Court held that (SCC p.107,

para 18)

“18. It is also well settled that

those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein

were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)”

: 22 :

14. The same view was reiterated in

Amlan Jyoti Borooah wherein it was held to

be well settled that the candidates who have

taken part in a selection process knowing

fully well the procedure laid down therein

are not entitled to question it upon being

declared to be unsuccessful.

17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil

Joshi, candidates who were competing for

the post of Physiotherapist in the State of

Uttarakhand participated in a written

examination held in pursuance of an

advertisement. This Court held that if hey

had cleared he test, the respondents would

not be raised any objection to the selection

process or to the methodology adopted.

Having taken a chance of selection, it was

held that the respondents were disentitled to

seek relief under Article 226 and would be

deemed to have waived their right to

challenge the advertisement or the procedure

of selection. This Court held that : (SCC

p.318, para 18)

“18. it is settled law that a

person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot,

: 23 :

thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.”

18. In Chandigarh Admn. V. Jasmine

Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes

a calculated risk or chance by subjecting

himself or herself to the selecton process

cannot turn around and complain that the

process of selection was unfair after knowing

of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep

Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this

Court held that : (SCC p.500, para 17)

“17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more

point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result.

However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates

cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the

: 24 :

interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.”

22. It is an admitted fact that on the complaint

made by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar Bandiwaddar, the

Upa-Lokayuktha conducted the enquiry and submitted

the report that there is a prima-facie case against the

petitioners and based on the entrustment, articles of

charges issued having participated before the Enquiry

Officer. It is not open for them to challenge before the

KAT as the same was pre-mature. The co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in an identical circumstances

considering the power of the State Government to

entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and issuance

of article of charges in the case of Gopal Hanamanth

Kase V/s. The State of Karnataka, Department of

Urban Development reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2646

(DB), dismissed the petitions holding that Government

can entrust the matter on the basis of the report

: 25 :

submitted by the Lokayuktha. The said judgment

passed by this Court has reached finality.

23. It is well settled law that the charge memo

does not disclose any misconduct for which charge have

been framed, the Tribunal or the Court could not justify

at this stage to go into whether charges are true or

could be go into, for it would be a matter on the

production of evidence for consideration at the enquiry

by the Enquiry Officer. At this stage, framing of charge,

statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are

required to be looked into by the Court or Tribunal is

the nature of the charge, charges and Court, Tribunal

should not interfere against the charge memo issued.

It is for the delinquent officials to file objections and

contest in the enquiry proceedings.

24. It is also a well settled that ordinarily

application before the Tribunal or writ does not lie

against the charge sheet or show cause notice for the

reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action.

: 26 :

It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the

right of any party unless the same has been issued by a

person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. The

charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is

only when a final order imposing the punishment or

otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may

have a grievance and cause of action. Therefore, the

charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary

proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the

court.

25. Our view is fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence

and others V/s. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported

in (2012) 11 SCC 565 at para Nos.8, 10 and 12 reads

as under:

“8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-

sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent

employee has any grievance in respect of the

charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a

representation and wait for the decision of the

: 27 :

disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-

sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the

ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary

proceedings or delay in concluding the

proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the

charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the

charge and all relevant factors involved in the case

weighing all the facts both for and against the

delinquent employee and must reach the

conclusion which is just and proper in the

circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh,

State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar,

Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union

of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise

Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N.

Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P.

Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V.

Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and

Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.)

10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie

against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for

the reason that it does not give rise to any cause

of action. It does not amount to an adverse order

which affects the right of any party unless the

same has been issued by a person having no

jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies

: 28 :

when some right of a party is infringed. In fact,

charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party.

It is only when a final order imposing the

punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a

party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause

of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause

notice in disciplinary proceedings should not

ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of

U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing

Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v.

Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam

Ghouse and union of India v. Kunisetty

Satyanarayana.)

12. Thus, the law on the issue can be

summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet

cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge

as it does not adversely affect the rights of the

delinquent unless it is established that the same

has been issued by an authority not competent to

initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the

disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be

quashed at an initial stage as it would be a

premature stage to deal with the issues.

Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the

grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a

belated stage or could not b concluded in a

: 29 :

reasonable period unless the delay creates

prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of

alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken

into consideration while quashing the proceedings.

V. Conclusion :

26. For the reasons stated above, the first point

raised has to be answered in the negative holding that

the entrustment of the case by the State Government

under Rule 14A of KCSRs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and

articles of charge issued by the Additional Registrar of

Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha is not a ground to file

the applications before the KAT to challenge the same.

27. The Tribunal considering the entire material

on record in a proper prospective rightly dismissed the

applications. The same is in accordance with law and

the 2nd point raised has to be answered in the negative

holding that the petitioners have not made out any

ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by

the KAT in exercising the powers under provisions of

: 30 :

Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

28. However, it is made clear that any

observations made by this Court, while deciding the writ

petitions, shall not influence the inquiry

officer/disciplinary authority and to take decision

independently /strictly in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE MNS/

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/236814/… · m.s. building, ambedkar veedhi, benglauru-560001. 2. honble

Documents