V.M. Narayana Swamy and another vs The State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 43810/2018 decided on 26 March 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/331592/1/WP43810-18-26-03-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs 8. …following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether the Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta under the Act has jurisdiction to investigate and hold an enquiry in respect of allegation made in the complaint against a person who is in the service or pay of a society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 for mis- management, mis-appropriation failing to discharge his duty, mal- administration and the like?”
9. The jurisdiction of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta to investigate is circumscribed by the powers conferred under Section 7 of the Act. The jurisdiction so vested cannot extend beyond what is specifically provided thereunder. In other words, they have been conferred power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a public servant as defined under the Act. They have not been conferred any power to investigate a grievance or an allegation against a private individual.
10. ….Where the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta proposes after making preliminary enquiry, as deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under the Act, is required to forward such copy of the complaint to the “public servant” against whom complaint is made to the and the competent authority concerned. In other words, the public servant is afforded an opportunity to offer his comments to such complaint. Thus, a harmonious reading of Section 7 and Section 9 would indicate that investigation can be taken up against a “public servant” only. The expression “public servant” is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, which reads: (Section extracted). “The expression “Government servant” as indicated in Section 2(12)(d) is defined in Section 2(6) and it reads: (Section extracted).
11. A plain reading of Section 9 of the Act would clearly indicate that investigation against a ‘Public Servant’ under the Act can be undertaken by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta after making such preliminary inquiry as deemed fit and such allegation is made against a public servant for having abused his position as ‘public servant’ to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue hardship or harm to any other persons; was actuated in discharge of his function as a ‘public servant’ by personal interest or improper and correct motives; fails to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servant; or his guilty of corruption, favoritism or nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity. Thus, condition precedent for investigating under Section 7 or being proceeded under Section 9 to enquire into would be that such person against whom the proceedings under the Act is initiated should be a “Government servant”.
12. A person in the service of pay of such of the authorities as defined under Section 2(12) would also be amenable for being investigated by Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta. In the event of such person falling outside scope of section 2(12), it cannot be gainsaid by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta that such persons would still be amenable to their jurisdiction, inasmuch as, it is only a “public servant” as defined under Section 2(12), who would be amenable for being investigated under Sections 7 and proceeded with under Section 9 of the Act. In the event of a person against whom the allegation is made, does not fall within the definition of Section 2(12), then necessarily such person cannot be roped in for investigation or proceeded under The Lokayukta Act.
13. It would be of benefit to note that under Section 2(12)(g)(iv) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 would also be amenable to the jurisdiction of Karnataka Lokayukta, subject to such society being under the control of State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the official gazette. Thus, primary requirement for investigation being taken- up against a person falling under Section 2(12) is; (i) he/she should be “public servant” as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act; (ii) and, if such person is a society as indicated in Section 2(12)(g)(iv), then such society should be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960, under the control of State Government which is notified in the Official Gazette.
14. Petitioners herein are being investigated for their alleged acts or misdeeds said to have been committed by them as office bearers of the Association…
15.….Petitioners are not being investigated for their acts committed in the capacity of a “Government Servant” as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act or for their acts as a “public servant” as defined under Section 2(12). On the contrary, it is to be noticed at the cost of repetition that the entire allegation made by the complainant in his complaint …revolves around the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners as office bearers of the Association. Hence, we are of the considered view that petitioners do not fall under the definition of “public servant” as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act.
16.….there is no material on record to show that Association of which the petitioners were the office bearers of the society is controlled by the State Government and same has been notified in the official gazette issued in that behalf by the Government of Karnataka.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 