Karnataka High Court Upholds Lokayukta Enquiry Against Asst Public Prosecutor Accused Of Malpractices Prior To Appointment
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha...
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by Dadapeer Bhanuvalli.
The Director of the Department of Prosecutions had issued a Notification on 16.05.2012 to fill up 197 Posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors cum Government Pleaders. The petitioner, having made an application pursuant to the said Notification, was selected and appointed to the post of APP cum Assistant Government Pleader on 17.06.2014, and he reported for duty on 30.06.2014.
Pursuant to a private complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered an FIR in Crime No.59/2014, and the (alleged) irregularities committed in the selection process were investigated, consequent to which a charge sheet and an additional charge sheet were filed, whereunder, the petitioner was arrayed as the accused No.49.
It was alleged that the petitioner was involved in certain malpractices in collusion with the Director of Prosecution with an intention to secure an appointment and had involved himself in manipulating answer scripts, and thata Departmental enquiry should be initiated against him.
The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the observation note on 17.07.2018, consequent to which Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, to the respondent No.1/Secretary, Home Department, seeking entrustment of the enquiry under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Following this, the inquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta, which issued articles of charge dated 29.12.2018. Against this, the petitioner moved the high court.
The petitioner argued that the charges alleged against him are in respect of an act done prior to his appointment as an APP cum AGP, and hence the same cannot be the subject matter of the investigation by the respondent No.3-Lokayukta.
The Lokayukta opposed the plea submitting that a similar question having been considered by the High Court in Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil Vs State of Karnataka (2021) in respect of the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta relating to the same recruitment conducted pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2012.
The bench referred to the relevant provisions and said “It is forthcoming from a combined reading of Section 7(2) and Section 9 of the Act that an investigation could be undertaken even suo-moto. It is further pertinent to note that Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules specifically refers to misconduct by a “candidate”.”
Referring to the order passed by the coordinate bench in the case of Ranjana Suresh Patil, the court said:
“The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil had noticed the scope and extent of investigation that was permissible under the Act with specific reference to the investigation carried out in respect of the irregularities in the recruitment Notification dated 16.05.2012 and having specifically answered the contention raised that the alleged irregularities pertains to a time prior to the appointment of the candidate as a Government servant, upon noticing Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules, having held that such an investigation is permissible, which has also been not interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same would also be applicable qua the petitioner in the present writ petition”.
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Advocates Nagendra Naik Mahesh Wodeyar for Petitioner.
AGA G.K Hiregoudar for R1 AND R2.
Advocate Anil Kale for R3 AND R4.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Case Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100890 OF 2022