EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE “PUBLIC SERVANTS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KL ACT, THEY ARE NOT “GOVERNMENT SERVANTS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID ACT AS WELL AS CCA RULES SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
In this matter S G Padmanabha vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022( W.P. No.50413 OF 2019 (GM-KLA)) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY stated that this w.p. it is listed under article 226 of the constitution of india, we pray to call the entire records resulting in the inquiry order dated 26.04.2016 of the govt.0dqua9. government order dated 26.04.2016 (as per annexure to w.p.) issued r-1, (ii) inquiry report on 31.08.2019 (according to appendix-p to w.p.) of detector a (iii) recommendation on 09.09.2019 (according to appendix-q to w.p.) r-
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners who are Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer of the Karnataka Slum Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) have challenged the validity of the Government Order dated 26.04.2016 issued by the Government of Karnataka and the Inquiry Report dated 31.08.2019 as well as the recommendation dated 09.09. 2019 submitted by Upalokayukta-1 and provide all consequential benefits to the petitioners. In order to consider the grievances of the appellants, the relevant facts are to be stated which are given below. Petitioner No. 1 joined the service of the council on 01.03.1989 as an assistant engineer and with effect from 10.11.1999 he was promoted to the position of assistant executive engineer. Petitioner No. 1 was further promoted to executive engineer with effect from 02/21/2011. At the relevant time, petitioner No.1 was posted at Dharwad. Petitioner No. 2 joined the service of the erstwhile Board on 8.12.1987 as Junior Engineer and was promoted to Executive Engineer with effect from 22.9.2000. Petitioner No. 2 was further promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer and was posted at Dharwad. Smt.Pramila Kotari and Sri.Ranganaika Tapela filed two complaints before the Karantaka Lokayukta that the petitioner no.2 in connivance with the land mafia committed certain irregularities in relation to the integrated slum development project. Petitioner No. 2 then submitted a detailed reply to the Inspector of Police giving the details of project execution and layout of houses. The Inspector of Police conducted the investigation and after a thorough investigation he gave a report that no irregularities were committed by the petitioner no.2 and one K.A.Bashir Ahmed another executive engineer compiled the list of beneficiaries. The Lokayukta was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the Inspector of Police and issued notice on 22.01.2015 to petitioner no.1 and one Sri.H.K.Sudhir. The Lokayukta filed a report under Section 12(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2016. The State Government then, by a resolution dated 26.04.2016, authorized the Lokayukta to investigate. Based on the aforesaid mandate, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 08.06.2016 appointed an additional employee registrar to assess the fees and conduct the enquiry. The petitioners were then issued a charge sheet on 27/07/2016. The petitioner filed a response to the indictment. The investigator submitted a report dated August 31, 2019. Upalokayukta by recommendation dated 09/09/2019 ordered the recommendation to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement. The State Government subsequently realized that it did not have disciplinary powers against the petitioners and therefore made a recommendation to the Council in a communication dated 18.10.2019. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion to set aside the order dated 26.04.2016 issued by the State Government, a copy of the inquiry report dated 13.08.2019 and the recommendation dated 09.09.2019 by the UpaLokayukta. In the above factual background, this petition arises for our consideration.
JUDGMENT
However, the Council has the right to consider the report submitted by the Upalokayukta dated 31.08.2019 under Section 12(3) of the Act and take the appropriate decision in accordance with the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt. certified copy of the order received today. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR