Karnataka high court upholds validity of Lokayuktainquiries, reverses ruling on bias

Bengaluru: A division bench of Karnataka high court has restored a legal provision that allows KPTCL (Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd) to entrust its disciplinary inquiries to Lokayukta. In the judgment delivered recently, it reversed a single-bench decision that struck down regulation 14(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) Regulations on grounds of real likelihood of bias. The regulation in question enables KPTCL to entrust disciplinary inquiries against its employees to Lokayukta.Allowing a writ appeal filed by Lokayukta, the division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and S Rachaiah held that there was no statutory bar preventing the investigation and subsequent inquiry by the same institution, especially when there were different wings involved. It said the presumption drawn by the single bench was palpably incorrect. It said the institution of Lokayukta acted as an independent institution against corruption, and strengthening the institution of Lokayukta was the need of the hour.It observed that the single judge's view that acquittal in a criminal case would lead to vengeful departmental action was completely unfounded, and that the recommendation of punishment did not establish bias. The division bench also observed that the single bench view that the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta should not play the dual role of prosecutor as well as inquirer resulted from an incorrect reading of the provisions of the Lokayukta Act.The case arose from disciplinary proceedings against V Ravindra Reddy, who worked as a mechanic Grade-II in Bescom, Chikkaballapura Urban division, and was booked in a bribery case in 2015. Lokayukta police filed a chargesheet in the criminal case, and the Upa Lokayukta submitted an inquiry report recommending disciplinary action against him.Based on the report, the disciplinary inquiry was entrusted to Lokayukta, and the additional registrar (enquiries), Lokayukta, was appointed as the inquiry officer. Reddy then moved the high court challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations.On Oct 16, 2024, the single bench declared Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations unconstitutional and quashed the Lokayukta recommendations to impose compulsory retirement on Reddy, citing a real likelihood of bias. It stated that once Lokayukta formed an opinion recommending disciplinary action, it could not thereafter function as an impartial enquiry authority, creating a structural defect in holding the inquiry in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The single bench also held that Lokayukta could not don both the roles of prosecutor in a criminal case and an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings.After perusing the provisions of the Lokayukta Act, the division bench noted that the inquiry officers in the institution of Lokayukta were all judicial officers deputed under the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988.It said that suggestions by the single bench that the inquiry officers would be biased and would not act independently, unfairly cast doubt on their integrity and functional ability to inquire into the allegations in the domestic inquiry against a delinquent public servant.The division bench held, "There is no empirical basis to come to the conclusion that there is a ‘manifest arbitrariness' in conducting the domestic inquiry... The said finding of manifest arbitrariness is based on hypothetical assumptions rather than evidence. There cannot be any bias of the institution against an individual."The institutional functioning over four decades of Lokayukta was disrupted by the impugned judgement without any such material or empirical data, it observed while setting aside the findings of the Single Bench.MSID:: 129551567 413 |