R CHALUVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 22nd of september, 1997 issued by the commissioner of corporation of city of Bangalore demoting him from the post of executive engineer to that of assistant executive engineer by way of punishment in the purported exercise of the powers vested in the latter under Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules.

(2.) THE petitioner is an executive engineer in the Bangalore city corporation. An enquiry into certain charges levelled against him was instituted by the government by its order dated 26th of december, 1994 and entrusted to the upalokayukta under Rule 14-a of the k. c. s. (c. c. a.) rules, 1957. The upalokayukta, conducted the enquiry and drew up a report dated 11th of february, 1997 holding the charges to have been proved. The record of the case along with the findings were then submitted to the government under Rule 14-a (2) (d) of kc. s. and c. c a. Rules with the recommendation that a punishment of reduction in rank to the grade of assistant executive engineer be imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 8 (v) of k. c. s. (c. c. a.) rules, 1957, with appropriate directions as required under clauses a and b of that sub-rule. On receipt of the recommendations the government by its communication dated 15th of may, 1987, forwarded the matter to the commissioner, respondent 2, herein asking him to take appropriate action against the petitioner as recommended by the upalokayukta. consequently, the commissioner has after issuing a show cause notice and considering the reply received from him demoted the petitioner to the post of assistant executive engineer. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity of the said order inter alia on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction.

(3.) MR. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a two fold submission in support of the petition. First he urged that the Provisions of the lokayukta act under which the upalokayukta had submitted his report and recommendations required appropriate action to be taken on the report by the competent authority. He referred to and relied upon section 12 (4) in support of his submission that it was the competent authority stipulated under the act alone who was required to examine the report forwarded to it within three months and intimate to the lokayukta or the upalokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis thereof. The expression 'competent authority' is defined by Section 2 (4) of the lokayukta act and in relation to a public servant other than a government servant, means such 'authority' as may be prescribed for the purpose. He urged that Rule 3 of the Karnataka lokayukta rules, 1985, prescribed the 'government of karnataka' to be the 'competent authority' in respect of public servants referred to in Section 2 (4) (d) of the act. He contended that on receipt of the report from the upalokayukta, it was the government who ought to have passed an order in terms of Section 12 (4) (b) of the act or taken appropriate action including one by way of imposing a punishment upon the petitioner.