Lokayukta Has Locus Standi To Approach Writ Court Against Service Tribunal Orders In Appropriate Cases: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the Lokayukta has locus standi to approach the Writ Court where the Service Tribunal has interfered in the delinquent employee’s cause on the ground that the proceedings held by the Lokayukta or its delegate suffer from legal or factual infirmity.
The Dharwad Bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta seeking quashment of Service Tribunal’s order by which an employee’s application having been favoured the punishment order of compulsory retirement was set aside.
A Division Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil said, "... one can with no risk of contradiction postulate that where the Tribunal has interfered in delinquent employee’s cause inter alia on the ground that the proceedings held by the Lokayukta or its delegate suffer from legal or factual infirmity, the Lokayukta will have locus standi to knock at the doors of Writ Court; it is more so, when the competent authority, for whatever reason, does not chose to challenge the order of the Tribunal, within a reasonable time, say six months or so, despite intimation by the Lokayukta."
The Bench emphasised that the the Lokayukta is not a busy body; it is established as a statutory entity for playing a pivotal role in the prevention of maladministration. Moreover, it noted that the same functions as a watch dog of public administration in a Welfare State as ordained by the Constitution of India and it is not that in the every case wherein relief is accorded to a public servant, as matter of course, the Lokayukta will have locus standi as It all depends upon facts and circumstances of the individual case brought before the Court.
"It is not that in every case, locus standii needs to be conceded to the Lokayukta, as a matter of course. Answer to the issue of locus standii depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. We do not propose to illustrate in what all circumstances Lokayukta can gainfully claim locus standii. Such an exercise, if undertaken, would only produce a plethora of obiter dicta, the said circumstances apparently being absent in the case at hand. Lokayukta is a statutory entity, of course of great significance, whereas Government of the State is a constitutional institution. We do not want to give an impression that the former is competing with the latter; it is not, is obvious. However, the institution of Lokayukta has a great role to play in minimizing the cases of maladministration, within the statutory limits, as delineated by rulings of courts", it also observed.
Senior Advocate Ashok Harnahalli represented the petitioner while Advocate Raghvendra Gayatri represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The senior counsel argued that there were two significant infirmities in the impugned order namely: (i) the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is violation of Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 when apparently there is compliance and therefore, there was absolutely no scope for invoking Section 9(3)(a) & (b) of the Act; (ii) in any event, after quashment of punishment order, the Tribunal could not have foreclosed the proceedings, but could have remanded the matter for consideration afresh. He also pointed out that long pendency of a matter is no ground for foreclosing the proceedings more particularly when the delinquent employee is still in service.
After service of notice, the delinquent employee being the first respondent had entered appearance through his private Advocate who resisted the petition on the ground of lack of locus standi of the Lokayukta. The Tribunal after examining the records had entered a finding as to non-compliance of Section 9(3) of the 1984 Act. The Tribunal gave a cogent finding as to why it has foreclosed the proceedings. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the petition.
The High Court in the above regard, observed, “The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the disciplinary enquiry strictly following Rule 11 of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, is again difficult to agree with. In pith & substance, we see, there is compliance. The spirit of the Rule is adhered to. Every insignificant deviation does not give a cause of action or ground for challenge.”
The Court said that the contention of the senior counsel that there is violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 11(3) of the 1957 Rules, does not merit acceptance.
“Learned counsel Mr. Gayatri submits that pursuant to quashment of the compulsory punishment, the applicant has been reinstated in service and that he has a short stint of period to retire and therefore the Tribunal is justified in not remanding the matter to the stage of infirmity, he is liable to be rejected. Period spent in judicial or quasi judicial, at times longer than required, per se is not a ground for foreclosing the enquiry”, it further noted.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 in which it invoked actus curiae neminem gravabit to mean that, act of the Court hurts none. It was observed in this case that the pendency of proceedings at whatever level is one such act, however, justice of case would be met if the punishment order of compulsory retirement is given effect to.
"In a case involving quashment of government order made under Rule 14A, the matter almost invariably goes back to the stage of Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act, unless the Tribunal/Court expressly says otherwise, and therefore, such cases need to be treated as of remand. It is highly desirable that the quashment orders, whatever be the ground, should specifically make that clear and prescribe the timeline for the disposal of remand. We are in the times when what is obvious needs to be obviated. Otherwise, judgments may become breeding grounds for injustice”, it also remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, issued a writ of certiorari, and quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title- The Karnataka Lokayukta v. Ishwar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:12677-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashok Harnahalli and Advocate Anil Kale.
Respondents: Advocates Raghvendra Gayatri, Sourab Hedge, and Government Advocate G.K. Hiregoudar.
