Smt. Chandran Lalitha K.A.S. vs State of Karnataka, Hon''ble Karnataka Lokayukta and Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—A complaint dated 07.04.2001 was made to the Karnataka Lokayukta against the Petitioner herein. The aforesaid complaint was actually presented before the Lokayukta on 18.06.2001. On receiving notice from the Karnataka Lokayukta, the Petitioner filed objections on 03.09.2001. Thereupon, a rejoinder to the objections filed by the Petitioner was received by the Karnataka Lokayukta from the complainant. Based on the pleadings, as also, the proceedings conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta, it submitted a report dated 11.10.2004.

Based on the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner on 27.02.2006. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to assail the order dated 27.02.2006, by which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against: the Petitioner.

The first contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was, that the prayer made in the complaint dated 07.04.2001 was of a nature, wherein, the Karnataka Lokayukta could not have entertained the complaint. The second contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was, that the Karnataka Lokayukta primarily relied upon the rejoinder affidavit submitted by the complainant. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit submitted by the complainant was, neither furnished to the Petitioner nor the Petitioner ever given an opportunity to repudiate the same.

Based on the aforesaid two contentions, it is asserted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the proceedings conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta must be deemed to have been vitiated, on account of various irregularities. It is, therefore submitted, that the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta dated 11.10.2004 could not justifiably have been the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against, the Petitioner. Collectively, on the basis of the aforesaid submission, a challenge has been raised by the Petitioner to the order dated 27.02.2006. whereby disciplinary proceedings have been ordered against the Petitioner.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs. It cannot be disputed, that disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated by the appointing authority against the Petitioner, even in the absence of any recommendation made at the hands of Lokayukta. It also cannot be disputed, that the Karnataka Lokayukta can at best make recommendations to the State Government for initiating action based on a valid complaint received by him, and as such, the recommendations made by the Karnataka Lokayukta are not binding on the State Government. Since, it is not a matter of dispute that the State Government could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, even without any recommendation from the Karnataka Lokayukta, we are satisfied that the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the competent authority initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be faulted, merely because the proceedings conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta were not strictly within the frame work of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. and/or based on the recommendations made in the report of the Lokayukta dated 11.10.2004.

It is important to notice, that a fair and reasonable opportunity is liable to be afforded to the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated against her on 27.02.2006. The aforesaid procedure is contemplated under the statutory rules governing the service rules of the Petitioner, as also, by the rules of natural justice. Thus viewed, it is apparent, that the Petitioner shall be afforded an effective opportunity to repudiate the charges levelled against her, during the course of disciplinary proceedings being conducted against her. Thus viewed, there would be no prejudice suffered by the Petitioner, even if the disciplinary proceedings initiated by order dated 27.02.2006 are permitted to be continued.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.