DIVAKAR V. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue which arises for our consideration in this writ petition revolves around as to whether the Upa lokayukta could have initiated proceedings suo motu under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules').

(2.) Records on hand would disclose that on a sting operation conducted by a News channel, petitioner herein was proceeded against by issuance of show cause notice dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-A) intimating petitioner thereunder that he should explain his defence with regard to the alleged incident that occurred on 17.12.2015, failing which action would be taken in accordance with CCA Rules. Subsequently, second show cause notice came to be issued on 25.01.2016 ? Annexure-B, for which petitioner submitted his reply/explanation on 28.01.2016 and after considering the reply and also entire material on record available, Disciplinary Authority - fourth respondent directed Joint Commissioner of BBMP to impose penalty on the petitioner and as such, penalty of censure came to be imposed on petitioner which has been accepted and said order imposing penalty dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-D) has reached finality.

(3.) During the interregnum complainant- Sri.Rowland Soans has lodged a complaint in Form No.I on 29.12.2015 ? Annexure-E before second respondent alleging petitioner and others had demanded bribe for issuance of food license. Second respondent issued notice to the petitioner on the same set of allegations which was subject matter of earlier show cause notices dated 19.01.2016 - Annexure-A and 25.01.2016 - Annexure-B by calling upon petitioner to offer his reply to the allegation made in the complaint. Petitioner offered his reply on 20.02.2016 - Annexure-G by denying the allegation of demand of bribe and also denied entire allegation made against him. After lapse of two years i.e. 22.01.2018 vide Annexure-H, second respondent submitted a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'Lokayukta Act') by recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner and two others, based on the sting operation made by a Private news channel, as aforestated. In fact, in the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act submitted by the Upalokayukta, a reference has been made to the defence raised by the petitioner to the show cause whereunder petitioner had specifically contended that on same set of allegations, penalty had already been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. This factual aspect seems to have not been delved upon in said report (Annexure-H) as to why said plea is not being considered except making an observation that no regular enquiry proceedings had been held under Rules 11 & 12 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 though allegation is of grave nature and therefore same cannot be a bar for proceeding against petitioner herein.