SC to examine if Lokayukta can reopen case to impose higher penalty for misconduct

The Supreme Court has decided to examine a question of law if punishment given by a disciplinary authority assumes finality or if the case can be reopened by the Karnataka Lokayukta to impose a higher penalty against an erring employee.

A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the Karnataka government and the Commissioner of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), among others on a petition by the Lokayukta.

The anti-corruption watchdog through advocate Nishanth Patil questioned the validity of the High Court's order of May 5, 2020. The HC had then allowed a plea by Divakar V who claimed that he was already given a punishment of censure by the BBMP for allegedly having been caught in a sting operation demanding and accepting a bribe in a case involving a food licence.

In its plea before the top court, the Lokayukta contended that the result of the High Court's judgment was that except minor punishment of censure for major misconduct, no disciplinary inquiry under the applicable rules has been conducted by any authority against the employee.

"The public confidence in statutory and constitutional authorities will be shattered if public servants who have been caught on camera demanding and accepting bribes are not brought to justice and are given a minor penalty," it said.

"In the present case, the entire system has been turned in favour of the respondent-employee due to his illegal and unjust strategies," it added.

The plea gave details of how, due to manipulation and connivance, the proceedings initiated by the Lokayukta were concealed before the departmental authority.

In the instant case, the Lokayukta found that no regular enquiry proceedings as required under Rule 11 and 12 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 has been held even though the allegations were grave in nature. Therefore, the proceedings already held cannot be a bar for proceeding against the employee.

The contention that the enquiry has already been conducted and penalty of censure has been imposed upon him cannot be accepted at this stage, it said, while recommending the state government to initiate disciplinary enquiry against him.