R.V.JATTANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions are fi led seeking rel ief of quashing the government order passed by the 1s t respondent/the State of Karnataka in No. NaAaE62/DMK/2018, Bengaluru, dated 28.07.2018 as per Annexure-A and also the report submitted by the 2nd respondent i.e. Upa-lokayukta in Complaint dated No.28.04.2018 in Compt/Uplok/BGM-2495/17 /ARE-6 and Compt/Uplok/BGM-2316/17/ARE-6 as per Annexure-B and for such other reliefs as the Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.

(2.) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. We have also careful ly perused the legal grounds raised in these writ petitions and also the factual aspects. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Upa-lokayukta/2nd respondent, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, submitted his report on 28.04.2018 holding that a prima-facie case has been made out for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry against the petitioners and as per Annexure-B, requested the 1s t respondent/ State Government to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry, as per paragraph 11 and 12 of the order. After receipt of the said order, the government passed an order as per Annexure-A, entrusting the matter to Upa-lokayukta for conducting discipl inary enquiry as contemplated under Section 14 of the CCA Rules. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said discipl inary enquiry is pending before Upa-lokayukta and report is awaited.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.J.S.Shetty strenuously contends before this Court drawing our attention to Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short "the Act") particularly, with reference to Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the Act and argued that, the government has got power to receive the report from Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, and in turn also the request made by the Upa-lokayukta to hold a discipl inary enquiry against the employee of the government or any publ ic servant. But the government itself cannot refer back the matter to Upa-lokayukta to conduct for further discipl inary enquiry, because it is only the action that has been taken by the government to be reported to Upalokayukta as per Section 12(4) of the Act. The wordings used in the said provision that the action taken by the government should be intimated to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or the action proposed to be taken on the basis of the report shal l be intimated to Upa-lokayukta.