<p>Upalokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi, who stayed away from office for 18 days after a motion was moved in the Assembly seeking his ouster, resumed work on Friday afternoon.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Justice Adi attended office soon after Advocate General (A-G) Madhusudan R Naik submitted to the high court that there was no indication in the motion moved against Upalokayukta to restrain him from discharging his duties and that the government was not intimidating or coming in between his duty.<br /><br />Justice Adi has moved the high court challenging the legality of the motion adopted by the Assembly.<br /><br />After recording the A-G’s statement, Justice Anand Byrareddy directed the secretaries of the Assembly and Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) to file objections on the petition and adjourned the hearing post-vacation.<br /><br />Justice Adi's petition contended that the motion was adopted without verifying valid reasons and sufficient grounds for his ouster. He contended that the motion initiated against him amounts to violation of procedure laid down in the recently amended Lokayukta Act.<br /><br />Senior counsel B V Acharya, appearing for Justice Adi, contended that while initiating the motion to unseat the Upalokayukta, the MLAs have not followed the procedure and no investigation has been conducted in the matter.<br /><br />The A-G submitted that it was still in premature stage as the Speaker has not taken any decision on the motion being allowed. The bench then questioned the A-G on what is the procedure for initiating the motion and why was it pending before the Speaker.<br /><br />The A-G then submitted that the Speaker will look into the materials placed before him and if prima facie he finds that an investigation has to be carried out, he will inform the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court who would then form a committee to investigate.<br /><br />Later, a report would be submitted to the Assembly which will be discussed and a decision taken.<br /><br />Justice Adi in his petition has also challenged the communication issued on December 3 by the office of the Speaker, Kagodu Thimmappa, to the DPAR and a copy which has been marked to the registrar of Lokayukta.<br /><br />The letter stated that motions were moved in the Houses to remove the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta.<br /><br />Accordingly, Section 6 (14) of the Karnataka Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2015, would come into effect. The letter, however, did not say whether the motions were admitted or not.<br /><br />Justice Adi arrived at the office of the Lokayukta at around 3.30 pm. He wished the other Upalokayukta Justice N Ananda at the latter's chamber. The two Upalokayuktas held discussion for some time and later the entire staff of the Lokayukta office wished Justice Adi. </p>
<p>Upalokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi, who stayed away from office for 18 days after a motion was moved in the Assembly seeking his ouster, resumed work on Friday afternoon.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Justice Adi attended office soon after Advocate General (A-G) Madhusudan R Naik submitted to the high court that there was no indication in the motion moved against Upalokayukta to restrain him from discharging his duties and that the government was not intimidating or coming in between his duty.<br /><br />Justice Adi has moved the high court challenging the legality of the motion adopted by the Assembly.<br /><br />After recording the A-G’s statement, Justice Anand Byrareddy directed the secretaries of the Assembly and Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) to file objections on the petition and adjourned the hearing post-vacation.<br /><br />Justice Adi's petition contended that the motion was adopted without verifying valid reasons and sufficient grounds for his ouster. He contended that the motion initiated against him amounts to violation of procedure laid down in the recently amended Lokayukta Act.<br /><br />Senior counsel B V Acharya, appearing for Justice Adi, contended that while initiating the motion to unseat the Upalokayukta, the MLAs have not followed the procedure and no investigation has been conducted in the matter.<br /><br />The A-G submitted that it was still in premature stage as the Speaker has not taken any decision on the motion being allowed. The bench then questioned the A-G on what is the procedure for initiating the motion and why was it pending before the Speaker.<br /><br />The A-G then submitted that the Speaker will look into the materials placed before him and if prima facie he finds that an investigation has to be carried out, he will inform the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court who would then form a committee to investigate.<br /><br />Later, a report would be submitted to the Assembly which will be discussed and a decision taken.<br /><br />Justice Adi in his petition has also challenged the communication issued on December 3 by the office of the Speaker, Kagodu Thimmappa, to the DPAR and a copy which has been marked to the registrar of Lokayukta.<br /><br />The letter stated that motions were moved in the Houses to remove the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta.<br /><br />Accordingly, Section 6 (14) of the Karnataka Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2015, would come into effect. The letter, however, did not say whether the motions were admitted or not.<br /><br />Justice Adi arrived at the office of the Lokayukta at around 3.30 pm. He wished the other Upalokayukta Justice N Ananda at the latter's chamber. The two Upalokayuktas held discussion for some time and later the entire staff of the Lokayukta office wished Justice Adi. </p>
