Skip to content


Mr Jayaprakash K Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWP 23522/2016
Judge
AppellantMr Jayaprakash K
RespondentState of Karnataka
Excerpt:
.....report of an upa-lokayukta dated 08.02.2016 communicated to the competent authority namely, the state government under section 12(3) of the karnataka lokayukta act, 1984 (‘the act’) recommending to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner under the karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957 (‘the rules’) in respect of the misconduct alleged against him.2. the petitioner has also challenged the order of the state government dated 23.02.2016 passed pursuant to the 3 - - wp no.23522/2016 aforesaid report in exercise of the power under rule 14-a(2)(a) of the rules whereby it has entrusted the matter to an upa-lokayukta to hold an inquiry against the petitioner as per rule 11 of the rules in respect of the misconduct alleged against him.3......
Judgment:

1 - - WP No.23522/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF OCTOBER2016PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.23522/2016 (GM-KLA) R BETWEEN: MR. JAYAPRAKASH K S/O LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT35YEARS EX-PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PRESENTLY SECRETARY MOODUSHEDDE GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU - 575 028 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT (BY SRI T.MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 ...PETITIONER2 UPA-LOKAYUKTA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2 - - WP No.23522/2016 3. ADDL.REGISTRAR (ENQUIRY-7) KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 (GA SERVED) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED0802.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F AND TO QUASH THE ORDER

DATED2302.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J.

(Oral):

1. Petitioner is a Government servant. In this writ petition, he has challenged the report of an Upa-Lokayukta dated 08.02.2016 communicated to the competent authority namely, the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘the Act’) recommending to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules’) in respect of the misconduct alleged against him.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the State Government dated 23.02.2016 passed pursuant to the 3 - - WP No.23522/2016 aforesaid report in exercise of the power under Rule 14-A(2)(a) of the Rules whereby it has entrusted the matter to an Upa-Lokayukta to hold an inquiry against the petitioner as per Rule 11 of the Rules in respect of the misconduct alleged against him.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The report of the Upa-Lokayukta impugned herein cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The report impugned herein, by itself, does not affect any legal right of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved of the report.

5. The competent authority namely, the State Government, on examining the aforesaid report, has passed the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 entrusting the matter to an Upa-Lokayukta as provided under Rule 14-A(2)(a) of the Rules to hold an inquiry against the petitioner as per Rule 11 of the Rules in respect of the misconduct alleged against him. 4 - - WP No.23522/2016 6. The aforesaid impugned order dated 23.02.2016 is in accordance with Rule 14-A(2)(a) of the Rules. Hence, we find no ground warranting interference in the matter in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not appropriate to interfere in the matter at this stage. It is proper for the petitioner to face the inquiry ordered by the State Government in respect of the misconduct alleged against him. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PL


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //