Karnataka High Court
Shri Shankarling S/O. Nagappa Gogi vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 30.01.2026
Pronounced on : 04.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.104498 OF 2025 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANKARLING
S/O NAGAPPA GOGI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC. PROJECT DIRECTOR
BAGALKOTE NIRMITHI KENDRA
R/O. NO.109/2, WARD NO. 11, PLOT NO. 55,
POSTAL COLONY, 2ND CROSS,
VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE - 587 102
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BUILDING CENTRE (KARNIK)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING
COOPERATION LIMITED
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE NIRMITHA KENDRA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN AND
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOTE - 587 103,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE.
4. SHRI SHIVAKUMAR NANJAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC.:PROJECT DIRECTOR
R/O NAVNAGAR
BAGALKOTE - 587 102.
IMPLEASED AS R-4 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025
PASSED ON IA NO.02/2025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-3;
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI JAGADISH PATIL AND
SRI VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-
24/376/1 DATED 29.06.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 29-06-2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, which now shoots
at the post of the Project Director at Nirmithi Kendra, Bagalkote.
2. Heard Sri A.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Smt. Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3, Sri Vijayakumar V.B.,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Jagadish
Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner was initially serving as Yojana
Vyavastapakru (Project Manager) at Nirmithi Kendra, Karwar. The
Governing Body of Nirmithi Kendra of Bagalkote District resolved to
appoint the petitioner as its Project Director. Consequently, an
4
appointment order was issued on 16-08-2012 appointing the
petitioner as Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra. After about 10
years of functioning of the petitioner, owing to the allegation of
amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income,
the then Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short) registers a crime
in Crime No.10 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections
13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The
source report so drawn was disproportionate assets to the tune of
186%. The registration of crime was challenged before this Court in
Writ Petition No.105147 of 2023. This Court rejects the Writ Petition
by holding that the Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra was a public
servant and the case was marred with corruption.
3.2. Pursuant to the rejection of the writ petition, it appears
that the Government issues a circular restraining all concerned
authorities from making appointments to the posts of Project
Director in Nirmithi Kendras without prior approval of the
Government. One S.N. Hiremath was proposed to be appointed as
in-charge Director in place of the petitioner and the petitioner was
taken out of the said post. On 29-06-2024, the in-charge Project
5
Director assumes charge of the post. Being aggrieved by the
appointment of Sri S.N. Hiremath as Project Director, the petitioner
prefers Writ Petition No.103730 of 2024. This Court grants an
interim order of stay on 03-07-2024. The petitioner then withdraws
the writ petition so filed challenging the appointment of in-charge
Project Director. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as
Deputy Director, Karnataka State Building Centre (KARNIK) on
contract basis for a period of one year. He reports for duty on 30-
10-2024. Thereafter he remains unauthorizedly absent. He once
again knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
3.3. An interim order is passed on 14-07-2025, based upon
that the petitioner is said to have reported for duty as Project
Director at Nirmithi Kendra. After reporting as Project Director on
the strength of the interim order, it appears that the petitioner was
issued a show cause notice seeking explanation for his unauthorized
absence at KARNIK office. The matter is heard at that stage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri A.S.Patil would vehemently contend that the petitioner was
6
displaced without authority of law. He was entitled to continue as
Project Director and in-charge arrangement is made contrary to the
principles of natural justice and the 3rd respondent who passed the
impugned order of dislodging the petitioner was not the Competent
Authority in terms of law. Therefore, the order that displaces the
petitioner is illegal and unsustainable, as the order is passed by the
ex-officio Chairman and the Deputy Commissioner, while the order
has to be passed by the 1st respondent/Government.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the
petitioner though did not secure favourable orders at the hands of
this Court, somehow or the other continued in the post of Project
Director of Nirmithi Kendra. The petitioner has completely
suppressed the fact that he was appointed as Deputy Director,
KARNIK and had reported for duty. After having reported for duties
at the said office he is remaining absent there and filed a writ
petition suppressing all the facts, secured an interim order and on
the strength of the interim order he is continuing as Project Director
in Bagalkote Nirmithi Kendra. On paper, he continues to work at
7
KARNIK as his appointment at KARNIK is not terminated and what
is issued is only a show cause notice seeking explanation for his
unauthorized absence at KARNIK.
6. The learned counsel Sri Vijayakumar V.B. and Sri Jagadish
Patil, who appear for the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent
would toe the lies of the learned High Court Government Pleader.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record, but would
require complete reiteration. Nirmithi Kendra, a registered society
under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act was established in
the year 1989. The Deputy Commissioner of a particular District is
the ex-officio Chairman of every Nirmithi Kendra and Members of
those Nirmithi Kendras are chosen from every walk of technical
field. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Yojana
Vyavatapakru (Project Manager). Owing to the experience of the
8
petitioner, it appears that on 04-05-2012 a resolution comes to be
passed by the Governing Body of the Nirmithi Kendra, Bagalkote
under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner to appoint the
petitioner as its Project Director. He was thus appointed as a
Project Director on 16-08-2012. The order was communicated to
the Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Cooperation
Limited/respondent No.2. The petitioner continued to work for 10
years as the Project Director of Nirmithi Kendra. On the allegation
that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to the
known source of income, the then ACB registers a crime in Crime
No.10 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. Two questions were raised as to whether a crime could be
registered by the ACB against the petitioner, as he was not a public
servant within the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and whether the offence would require further investigation at the
hands of the ACB? This comes to be challenged by the petitioner
before this Court in Writ Petition No.105147 of 2023. The issue that
was projected before this Court was that Nirmithi Kendra was not a
9
State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner
is not a public servant within the definition of public servant, as is
obtaining under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court, in
terms of its order dated 22-08-2023, passed the following order:
".... .... ....
6. The service of the petitioner at the Nirmithi Kendra
would commence from 2003. After about 20 years of his
service, a source report is drawn against the petitioner on the
allegation that he has amassed wealth grossly disproportionate
to the known source of income to the tune of 186%. This
results in a crime being registered by the then Police of the ACB
on 16.08.2022 for the afore quoted offences. The registration
of the crime by the ACB drives the petitioner to this Court.
This Court entertains the petition and grants
interim order of stay which reads as follows:
ORDER
“Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel, accepts notice for
the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that, he is an
employee of Nirmithi Kendra, which is not a State for
the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
and he is not a Public Servant as contemplated under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for any act
of his, the provisions under the said enactment is not
attracted and that he has been erroneously charged
under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
For the aforementioned reasons, there shall be
stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.10/2022
pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkote, till the next date of hearing.
Call on 23.08.2022.”
10
7. The interim order of stay was granted on the
submission being prima facie accepted that the employees of
the Nirmithi Kendra were not public servants and would not
come within the ambit of the PC Act.
8. During the pendency of the said writ petition and
subsistence of the interim order, a Division Bench abolishes the
office of the ACB that leads the petitioner withdrawing the
petition and filing the subject petition. Though, an interim order
of stay was operating on an earlier occasion that was on the
score that the petitioner was not a public servant and offences
punishable under PC Act would not become applicable to the
employees of the Nirmithi Kendra.
9. I decline to accept the said submission on the score
that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
G.Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka has held that a
Projector Director working in a Nirmithi Kendra, and Nirmithi
Kendra receiving funds from the hands of the State Government
would come within the definition of ‘public servant’ as defined
under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in the
said judgment in Criminal Petition No.2801/2021 has held as
follows:
1. Corruption hurts everyone. Corruption erodes
the trust of a common man in the system.
Corruption effects the society, the industry, the
economy, the mankind and the nation at large.
Corruption has been in existence even during
ancient times and it will continue to exist and our
vision has to be to curb the same and make our
nation corruption free.
2. Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime
No.2/2021 registered by the Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB), Chickkaballapura, for the offences
punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,
‘P.C.Act’), has filed this petition under Section 482
Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the FIR and all
further proceedings in Crime No.2/2021 which is
now pending before the Court of Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Chickkaballapura.
11
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the
records are, petitioner is working as a Project
Manager in Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura Taluk
and District, which is a society registered in the year
2008 under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960. The Governing Body of the
Nirmithi Kendra comprises of the Deputy
Commissioner of the District as the Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat as the
Executive Chairman, Deputy Secretary
(Development) of the Zilla Panchayat as the Member
Secretary, the Project Manager of Kolar District
Nirmithi Kendra, the Executive Engineer, Zilla
Panchayat Engineering Division, the District
Welfare Officer, Chikkaballapur, the DDPI,
Chikkaballapura, the Project Manager,
Chickkaballapura Nirmithi Kendra, amongst others
as members. The administration of the Kendra is
governed by the Governing Body. The principal
object of the Kendra is to develop skills in
construction and to undertake the civil construction
works assigned by the Government.
4. On receipt of a source report that the
petitioner who is working as a Project Manager in
District Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, was
possessing disproportionate assets as against the
known sources of his income, the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Chikkaballapura, had forwarded the
said report to the Superintendent of Police, ACB
Central Zone, Bengaluru, based on which, FIR in
Crime No.2/2021 was registered against the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner
has approached this Court with a prayer to quash
the same.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent-authority has no power to
register a case against the petitioner under the
provisions of the P.C.Act, for the simple reason
that the petitioner is not a public servant. He
submits that the petitioner is an employee of
Nirmithi Kendra which is a society and the said
society has not been receiving any funds either
from the State Government or the Central
Government. He submits that in identical
circumstances, this Court in the case of
12
GOPINATH ALIAS GOPINATHSA VS THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA, BIJAPUR & ANOTHER –
2014(4) KCCR 3668, has held that the
employee of the Nirmithi Kendra cannot be
termed as a public servant, and therefore, had
quashed the criminal proceedings initiated
against the petitioner therein under the
P.C.Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police. He
submits that the said judgment was
challenged by the State before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the special leave petition
was dismissed. He also submits that relying
upon the judgment in Gopinath’s case (supra),
a coordinate bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.169/2014 had quashed the entire
proceedings in respect of the petitioner therein
who was also an employee of the Nirmithi
Kendra. He refers to Annexure-D which is a
communication issued by the Principal
Secretary to the Government, Housing
Department, to the President of Bengaluru
Nirmithi Kendra, and submits that in the said
communication, the request for deputation of
employees of the Nirmithi Kendra to other
departments of the State was declined on the
ground that the employees of the Nirmithi
Kendra are not Government servants. He
submits that the appointment of the employees
of the Kendra are done by the Governing Body
of the Kendra, and therefore, they are the
employees of the society and they cannot be
termed as public servants. He has also referred
to Annexure-M which is an affidavit by the
Secretary to the Housing Department, filed
before this Court in a writ petition pertaining to
the applicability of Right to Information Act,
2005, to the Nirmithi Kendra and submits that
in the affidavit, it is categorically stated in
paragraph 7 that the Nirmithi Kendra which do
not receive funds/finance from the State
Government or the Central Government cannot
be considered as public authorities under the
RTI Act. He submits that the question whether
the employee of Nirmithi Kendra is a public
servant or not has been already considered in
Gopinath’s case by this Court and the said
13
question is no more res integra and he refers to
paragraphs 4 to 11 of the said judgment which
reads as under:
“4. It is the contention of the petitioner
that even an IAS Officer deputed to a Co-
operative Society drawing his salary from
Society cannot be a public servant and the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, does
not apply. The Petitioner is not a public servant
within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention
of Corruption Act. The petitioner falls totally
outside the definition of public servant and
jurisdiction of Lokayukta Police and there is no
scope and also looking into the body of the six
bye-laws framed, though it is a private sector,
it has to receive funds from the State
Government or Central Government, no such
fund has been received by the society for which
the petitioner is the Project Manager. Only on the
ground that the petitioner is a Project Manager,
a case is registered against him.
5. The letter at Annexure.C1 from
the Housing Department of the State
Government addressed to the President of the
Nirmithi Kendra clearly mentions that as per
the Rule 20 – appointment by deputation,
the Nirmithi Kendra is registered under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, it
is not a Government Department and also
petitioner cannot be called as Government
servant. Accordingly, it is contended that a
false case has been initiated against the
petitioner by the Lokayukta by filing a complaint
before the Lokayukta Police, Bijapur, alleging
violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Hence, this petition.
6. Various Annexures produced by the
petitioner do depict that except the Society is
registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, petitioner cannot be said to be a
public servant or Government servant as such,
according to the petitioner, filing of the complaint
and initiation of action against petitioner is
without jurisdiction and also in violation of the
provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,
1984 as well as Prevention of Corruption Act and
the power exercised by the respondent by filing a
complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law
14and also defamatory.
7. The learned counsel for the
Lokayukta referring to Section 2(c) (xii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which read.–
“2. (c)(xii) Any person who is an
officer-bearer or an employee of an
educational, scientific, social, cultural or
other institution, in whatever manner
established, receiving or having received any
financial assistance from the Central
Government or any State Government, or
local or other public authority”.
Submitted that petitioner is an office
bearer or Nirmithi Kendra which is receiving or
having received any financial assistance from
the State Government or Central Government,
as such any violation forms the basis to initiate
action against the petitioner under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The learned Counsel also relied upon the
decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Karnail Singh, AIR 2009 SC 372 wherein the
Apex Court was dealing with similar case of
Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank
Limited, that was established by the
Government and the appeal filed by the State
was allowed and matter was remitted for
reconsideration.
8. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that neither the
Society has received the funds from the State
Government or Central Government nor
appointments are made by the Government
and is having no character of any authority or
local authority under the State. The filing of
the complaint and initiation of proceedings
against the petitioner is nonest in the eye of the
law and is nothing but abuse of process of
laws.
9. The petitioner is said to be the
Project Manager of an institution which
undertakes contracts taking no assistance of
the State Government or Central Government.
Accordingly, it is submitted the institution has
no character of the Government or
Governmental body. It is also submitted,
there is a provision made to receive the amount
from both the State Government or Central
15
Government however, no such amount is
received so far nor any financial assistance is
extended to the Project Manager i.e., Nirmithi
Kendra.
10. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner also relied upon the judgment in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi
Shah and Others, AIR 2000 SC 937 wherein
referring to Section 2 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 and also Section
21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as regards
a ‘Public Servant’ the Apex court has held that
the Chairman of Maharashtra Co- operative
Societies Act, though, a public servant under
Societies Act but not so, under Section 21 of
Indian Penal Code and he cannot be prosecuted
for offences under the India Penal Code and he
cannot be prosecuted for the offence under
Section 161 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
The learned Counsel also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of M.A.
Parthasarathy Vs. The Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore
and Others, ILR 2009 Kar.1940: (2009 (3)
KCCR SN 139) wherein it held that as per
Scheme of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
The condition precedent for submitting the said
report is, only when the allegation is
substantiated either wholly or partly against
public servants so that follow up action may be
taken against them by the Government. As
per Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act, the
investigation to be conducted by the
Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta is in respect of a
complaint against a public servant only. The
words ‘public servant’ has been defined under
Section 2(12) of the Lokayukta Act.
11. The question in this case is with
respect to the petitioner who is a Project
Manager of Nirmithi Kendra which is neither
enunciated by the State Government or Central
Government, except a Society registered under
the Societies Registration Act and the case of
the petitioner does not fall within the definition
of Section 2(12) of Lokayukta Act, so as to
initiate action under Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. In the above cited
decision of the High Court, it is specifically held
that Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta have no
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the
16
person who does not come within the
definition of a public servant has defined
under the Act. This makes it clear that except
a provision that has been made in the bye-laws
of Nirmithi Kendra to receive the funds etc., by
the State Government or Central Government, in
the absence of any such fund being received
from the State Government or Central
Government and without there being any misuse
of power or misuse of the amount so available
with the society, there was no scope for the
Investigation Officer to file a complaint to the
Lokayukta and the said complaint even if it
filed, is non est.”
6. He submits that inspite of there being a
judgment of this Court to the effect that the employees of the
Nirmithi Kendra are not public servants and though the said
judgment is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
respondent-authority has now registered a case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable under the
provisions of the P.C.Act, which is totally without
jurisdiction, and accordingly prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the respondent submits that the judgment of this Court in
Gopinath’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of
this case. He submits that the definition of the word
‘public servant’ as found in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act
and P.C.Act are different. He also submits that the
Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received
grants/funds from the State Government as well as from
the Central Government and in Gopinath’s case (supra),
there is a finding to the effect that the Nirmithi Kendra
therein was not receiving any funds. He submits that since
the Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received funds
from the State and the Central Government, it cannot be
said that it is not a public authority. He submits that
petitioner is discharging a public duty, and therefore, he
comes within the ambit of the P.C.Act. He refers to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
STATE OF GUJARAT VS MANUSUKHBHAI
KANJIBHAI SHAH – 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412, and
submits that even persons who are discharging public
duties are answerable to the State and the public, and are
covered under the ambit of the P.C.Act. He submits that
having regard to the nature of the work undertaken by
the petitioner, it can be clearly said that the petitioner
is discharging public duty and he is answerable to the
State as well as the public. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he is possessing assets disproportionate to
his known source of income, and therefore, he is
17
answerable to the State. He submits that admittedly, the
Nirmithi Kendra undertakes construction works entrusted to
them by the Government and the work of the petitioner who
is a Project Manager is to look after the said construction
activities. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has dismissed the SLP filed by the State against the
judgment of this Court in Gopinath’s case (supra) in
simplicitor, and therefore, the same cannot have any binding
precedent. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LTD. VS STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS –
(1986)4 SCC 146, UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS
M.V.MOHANAN NAIR – (2020)5 SCC 421, and STATE
OF ORISSA & OTHERS VS MD. ILLIYAS – (2006)1
SCC 275, in support of this contention of his. He
submits that the petitioner is not only a public servant,
but he also discharges public duty, and therefore, he is
clearly covered by the provisions of the P.C.Act, and having
regard to the allegation against him based on the source
report, the ACB have rightly registered a case against him
for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read
with 13(2) of the P.C.Act and the investigation in the case is
under progress. He further submits that when there is a
prima facie case made out for cognizable offences in the FIR,
interference with the investigation should not be made in
exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, and
accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides
and also perused the entire material on record.
9. The question that would arise for
consideration in this petition would be,
“whether the petitioner who is an
employee of Nirmithi Kendra which is a
body registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960, can be
prosecuted for the offences under the
P.C.Act?”
10. The undisputed facts of this case are,
petitioner is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra,
Chikkaballapura, which is a society registered
under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1960. The said Kendra has been undertaking civil
construction works of the State Government
assigned to it. Petitioner who is working as Project
Manager of the Kendra has been looking after the
said construction works in various sites.
18
11. The material on record would go to show that
the Deputy Commissioner of the District is the
Chairman of the Governing Body of the Kendra, while
the Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Secretary
of the Zilla Panchayat are the Executive Chairman and
the Member Secretary, respectively. There are many
other senior Government officials who are the
members of the Governing Body. The audit report of
the Kendra which is available on record would go to
show that the Kendra has been receiving funds from
the State as well as from the Central Government.
The word ‘public servant’ as defined under Section
2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, reads as
under:
“(12) “public servant” means a person who is
or was at any time, –
(a) the Chief Minister;
(b) a Minister;
(c) a member of the State Legislature;
(d) a Government Servant;
(e) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman (by
whatever name called) or a member of a local
authority in the State of Karnataka or a
statutory body or corporation established by or
under any law of the State Legislature,
including a co-operative society, or a
Government Company within the meaning of
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and
such other corporations or boards as the State
Government may, having regard to its financial
interest in such corporations or boards, by
notification, from time to time, specify;
(f) member of a Committee or Board,
statutory or non-statutory, constituted by the
Government; and
(g) a person in the service or pay of,-
(i) a local authority in the State of
Karnataka;
(ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not
being a local authority) established by
or under a State or Central Act,
owned or controlled by the State
Government and any other board or
corporation as the State Government
may, having regard to its financial
interest therein, by notification, from
19time to time, specify;
(iii) a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, in which not
less than fifty one per cent of the paid
up share capital is held by the State
Government, or any company which
is a subsidiary of such company;
(iv) a society registered or deemed to have
been registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960,
which is subject to the control of the
State Government and which is notified
in this behalf in the official Gazette;
(v) a co-operative society;
(vi) a university;
Explanation:- In this clause, “Co-operative Society”
means a Co-operative society registered or deemed to
have been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959, and “university” means a university
established or deemed to be established by or under any
law of the State Legislature.”
12. In the P.C.Act, the words ‘public duty’ and ‘public
servant’ are defined in Sections 2(b) & 2(c),
respectively as under:
(b) “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of
which the State, the public or the community at large
has an interest.
Explanation: In this clause “State” includes a
corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body
owned or controlled or aided by the government or
a government company as defined in section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(c) “public servant” means,-
(i) any person in the service or pay of the
government or remunerated by the
government by fees or commission for the
performance of any public duty;
(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local
authority;
20
(iii) any person in the service or pay of a
Corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or an
authority or a body owned or controlled or
aided by the Government or a Government
company as defined in section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by
law to discharge, whether by himself or as a
member of any body of persons, any
adjudicatory functions;
(v) any person authorised by a court of justice
to perform any duty, in connection with the
administration of justice, including a
liquidator, receiver or commissioner
appointed by such court;
(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any
cause or matter has been referred for decision
or report by court of justice or by a
competent public authority;
(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of
which he is empowered to prepare, publish,
maintain or revise an electoral roll or to
conduct an election or part of an election;
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of
which he is authorised or required to
perform any public duty;
(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or
other office-bearer of a registered co-
operative society engaged in agriculture,
industry, trade or banking, receiving or
having received any financial aid from the
Central Government or a State Government or
from any corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or any
authority or body owned or controlled or aided
by the Government or a Government
company as defined in section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(x) any person who is a chairman, member or
employee of any Service Commission or
Board, by whatever name called, or a
member of any selection
committee appointed by such
Commission or Board for the conduct of any
examination or making any selection on
behalf of such Commission or Board;
21
(xi) any person who is a Vice- Chancellor or
member of any governing body, professor,
reader, lecturer or any other teacher or
employee, by whatever designation called, of
any University and any person whose
services have been availed of by a University
or any other public authority in connection
with holding or conducting examinations;
(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an
employee of an educational, scientific, social,
cultural or other institution, in whatever
manner established, receiving or having received
any financial assistance from the Central
Government or any State Government, or
local or other public authority.
Explanation 1: Persons falling under any of the above
sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the
Government or not.
Explanation 2: Wherever the words “public servant”
occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in
actual possession of the situation of a public servant,
whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold
that situation.”
13. From the reading of the definition of the
word ‘public servant’ as found in the P.C.Act, it
is very clear that a person who holds an office
by virtue of which he is authorized or required to
perform any public duty, and any person or
employee of any institution if it has been
receiving or if it has received any financial
assistance from the State or Central Government,
shall be considered as a public servant. The
explanation to Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act
would further go to show that such a person
may be appointed by the Government or not.
Therefore, a public servant need not be a
Government/civil servant, but a
Government/civil servant is always a public
servant.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manusukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah‘s case (supra) has held that an
employee of a co-operative society which is controlled
or aided by the Government is covered within the
comprehensive definition of the word ‘public servant’
as defined under the P.C.Act.
22
15. The judgment of this Court in Gopinath’s case
was rendered having regard to the fact that the
Nirmithi Kendra of which the petitioner therein was
employed had not received any funds from the State
or the Central Government or any other public
authority. There is a specific finding to the said effect
in the said judgment. However, in the case on hand,
the records would reveal that the Nirmithi Kendra in
which the petitioner is employed has been receiving
funds from the Central as well as the State
Government. Therefore, the judgment of this Court
in Gopinath’s case will not be applicable to the facts
of this case.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of THE
STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER
VS M/S. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS & ANOTHER –
AIR 2002 SC 834, has observed that judgments
can be relied upon as precedents, if only the same is
applicable to the fact situation of the case. In
paragraph 19 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
“19. Courts should not place reliance on
decisions without discussing as to how the
factual situation fits in with the fact situation of
the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are not to be read as
Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the
statute. These observations must be read in the
context in which they appear. Judgments of
Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To
interpret words, phrases and provisions of a
statute, it may become necessary for judges to
embark into lengthy discussions but the
discussion is meant to explain and not to
define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not
interpret judgments. They interpret words of
statutes, their words are not to be
interpreted as statues ”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil
Corporation Limited case (supra), has held that:
“The dismissal of a special leave petition
in limine by a non-speaking order does not
justify any inference that by necessary
implication the contentions raised in the special
leave petition on the merits of the case have
23been rejected by Supreme Court. The effect of
a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special
leave petition without anything more indicating
the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must,
by necessary implication, be taken to be
that Supreme Court had decided only that it
was not a fit case where special leave should be
granted. It cannot be assumed that it had
necessarily decided by implication all the
questions in relation to the merits of the award,
which was under challenge before Supreme
Court in the special leave petition.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V.Mohanan
Nair‘s case (supra), has held that dismissal of the
special leave petition in limine does not constitute a
law declared by the Supreme Court within the
meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India
and the impugned judgment/order against which
special leave petition is dismissed in limine does not
stand affirmed by the Supreme Court nor does it
merge with the order of the special leave petition.
Such a judgment/order would stand on its own
and cannot be cited as a precedent of the
Supreme Court.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited case
and in M.V.Mohanan Nair‘s case (supra),
it cannot be said that the judgment of this
Court in Gopinath’s case (supra) has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court.
20. Be that as it may, having regard to the
fact that the Nirmithi Kendra in which the
petitioner is employed has been receiving
funds from the State and the Central
Government and taking into consideration the
definition of the word ‘public servant’ as
found in the P.C.Act, it cannot be but said
that the petitioner is a public servant. Even if
a person is not a public servant, but by
virtue of his office if he is discharging public
duty, then he is covered under the ambit of
the P.C.Act.
21. Corruption in our country is a growing
24
menace and P.C.Act being a welfare
legislation is required to be interpreted
keeping in mind the object and spirit of the
statute. In furtherance of the fight against
corruption a broad interpretation to the
provisions of this statute is required to be
given and the arms of this Act is required to
be extended to the maximum. The offences
under the P.C.Act can be invoked not only
against a public servant but also against a
person, who by virtue of his office has been
discharging ‘public duty’. In Manusukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed at paragraphs 26,
27, 44 to 46, 49 & 50 as under:
“26. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan
Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court observed:
“68. Today, corruption in our country not only
poses a grave danger to the concept of
constitutional governance, it also threatens the
very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule
of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public
life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist,
secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed
that where corruption begins all rights end.
Corruption devalues human rights, chokes
development and undermines justice, liberty,
equality, fraternity which are the core values in
our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the
Court is that any anti-corruption law has to
be interpreted and worked out in such a
fashion as to strengthen the fight against
corruption. That is to say in a situation
where two constructions are eminently
reasonable, the Court has to accept the one
that seeks to eradicate corruption to the
one which seeks to perpetuate it.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. We shall accordingly have due regard
to the aforesaid principles while interpreting the
provisions herein. The point of contention relates
to whether a deemed University would be
included within the ambit of the PC Act,
particularly under Section 2(c)(xi) of the same,
where the word used is “University”. The learned
senior counsel for the appellant-State submits
that the word “University” as used in Section
2(c)(xi) of the Act, must be purposively
25
interpreted. An institution which is “deemed to be
a University” under the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 [UGC Act] plays the same
role in society as a “University”. These
institutions have the common public duty of
granting degrees, which are ultimately
qualifications recognized in society. As such, an
institution which is “deemed to be University”,
such as the institution in the present case, is
included within the ambit of the term “University”
used under the Act.
44.As discussed earlier, the object of the
PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil of
bribery and corruption, but also to make the
same applicable to individuals who might
conventionally not be considered public servants.
The purpose under the PC Act was to shift focus
from those who are traditionally called public
officials, to those individuals who perform public
duties. Keeping the same in mind, as rightly
submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant-State, it cannot be stated that a
“Deemed University” and the officials therein,
perform any less or any different a public duty,
than those performed by a University simpliciter,
and the officials therein.
45.Therefore, for all the above reasons, we
are of the opinion that the High Court was
incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is
excluded from the ambit of the term “University”
under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.
46.Having come to the above
conclusion, in the present case, the pivotal
question is whether the appellant-trustee in the
Board of ‘Deemed to be University’ is a ‘public
servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the PC
Act. Recently, this Court in the case of CBI v.
Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788, dealt with
the question as to whether Chairman, Directors
and officers of a private bank before its
amalgamation with a public sector bank, can be
classified as public servants for prosecution under
the PC Act. While dealing with the aforesaid
proposition of law, the Court analysed the
purpose and scope of the PC Act and made the
following observations:
26
“15. From the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the PC Bill it is clear that the Act
was intended to make the anti-corruption law
more effective by widening its coverage. It is
also clear that the Bill was introduced to
widen the scope of the definition of “public
servant”. Before the PC Act, 1988, it was the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections
161 to 165-A in Chapter IX IPC which were
governing the field of law relating to
prevention of corruption. Parliament repealed the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also
omitted Sections 161 to 165-A IPC as provided
under Sections 30 and 31 of the PC Act, 1988.
Since a new definition of “public servant” is given
under the PC Act, 1988, it is not necessary here
to reproduce the definition of “public servant”
given in Section 21 IPC.
…
17. The above definition shows that
under sub- clause (viii) contained in Section
2(c) of the PC Act, 1988, a person who holds
an office by virtue of which he is authorised
or required to perform any public duty, is a
public servant. Now, for the purposes of the
present case this Court is required to examine as to
whether the Chairman/Managing Director or
Executive Director of a private bank operating under
licence issued by RBI under the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949, held/holds an
office and
performed/performs public duty so as to attract
the definition of “public servant” quoted above.”
(emphasis supplied)
49.In order to appreciate the amplitude of
the word “public servant”, the relevance of the
term “public duty” cannot be disregarded. “Public
duty” is defined under Section 2(b) of the PC Act,
which is reproduced below:
2(b) ‘public duty’ means a duty in the
discharge of which the State, the public or the
community at large has an interest.
50.Evidently, the language of Section 2(b)
of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged
wherein State, the public or community at large
has any interest is called a public duty. The
first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that
any person who falls in any of the categories
stated under Section 2 is a public servant
27
whether or not appointed by the government.
The second explanation further expands the
ambit to include every person who de facto
discharges the functions of a public servant, and
that he should not be prevented from being
brought under the ambit of public servant due to
any legal infirmities or technicalities.”
22. In the supplemental reasons assigned by
one of the Hon’ble Judges who was party to the
aforesaid judgment at paragraphs-10 & 12, it is
observed as follows:
“10. It cannot be lost sight of that the Act, 1988, as
its predecessor that is the repealed Ac of 1947 on the
same subject, was brought into force with avowed purpose
of effective prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act of
1988 which repeals and replaces the Act of 1947 contains a
definition of ‘public servant’ with vide pectrum in clause (c)
of Section 2 of the Act,1988, so as to purify public
administration. The objects and reasons contained in the
Bill leading to passing of the Act can be taken assistance
of, which gives the background in which the legislation was
enacted. When the legislature has introduced such a
comprehensive definition of “public servant” to achieve
the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace
of corruption in the society imparting public duty, it would
be apposite not to limit the contents of the definition
clause by construction which would be against the spirit
of the statute.
11. xxx xxx
12. In construing the definition of ‘public servant’ in
clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the court is
required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the
intention of the legislature. The legislature has, intentionally,
while extensively defining the term ‘public servant’ in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Act and clause (xi) in particular has
specifically intended to explore the word ‘any’ which includes
all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating
in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the
form. In this context, the legislature has taken not of ‘any’
person or member of “any” governing body by whatever
designation called of “any” university to be termed as ‘public
servant’ for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act
1988.”
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah‘s case (supra), taking
into consideration the rampant corruption that has been
affecting the public life, with an object of making India
corruption free, has observed that to achieve the
purpose of punishing and curbing the corruption in
society, the definition clause of the words ‘public
28
servant’ and ‘public duty’ should not be limited affecting
the very spirit of the statute.
24. Petitioner is an employee of the Nirmithi
Kendra which is undertaking civil construction
work for the Government and has been receiving
funds from the State and Central Government.
Since the Kendra has been receiving funds from
the Government, it can be termed that the said
Kendra is under the control of the State
Government and having regard to the nature of
work discharged by the petitioner in a society
which is under the control of the Government, it
can be clearly said that the petitioner has been
discharging public duty. The Kendra has been
receiving funds from the Government and the
works entrusted by the Government is
performed by the Kendra, and therefore, the
Kendra as well as its employees are answerable
to the State as well as to the public. Petitioner
is working as a Project Manager of Nirmithi
Kendra and the nature of work carried on by him
will fall within the definition of the word ‘public
duty’ as defined under the P.C.Act. It is now
well settled that even if a individual is not a
public servant, but if he is discharging “public
duty” by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the
State and public and he comes within the ambit
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore,
even if the Nirmithi Kendra is not receiving or has
not recovered any fund from the Central or State
Government, but if the employees of the Kendra by
virtue of his office is discharging public duty,
then he is answerable to the State, Community
and the public, and can be prosecuted for the
offences under the P.C.Act. Accordingly, I
answer the question framed for consideration in
the affirmative.
25. Corruption is considered the single biggest
problem faced by our country. It undermines
democracy and rule of law and violates human rights.
The corrupt take advantage of the loopholes in the
legal system and that is why it has become a low risk
but high profit business. Corruption to do the wrong
thing is one thing, but when corruption reaches the
stage of getting right things done which a citizen is
legally entitled for, then the very moral fabric of the
society is destroyed.
26. Good laws alone would be not sufficient to make
our country corruption free, but there has to be effective
29
enforcement of the same and efforts should be towards
making the concerned accountable. Demanding bribe is a
crime so is offering a bribe.
27. The ACB has registered an FIR against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(b) read
with 13(2) of the P.C.Act, for the reason that the
petitioner is possessing assets disproportionate to his
known source of income. Since the Nirmithi Kendra
wherein the petitioner is employed is said to have
received funds from Central and State Government, it
cannot be but said petitioner is a public servant.
Petitioner by virtue of his office is discharging public
duty, and therefore, is answerable to the State as
well as the public and even if it can be said that he is
not a public servant, he cannot be left out of the hook.
The criminal petition, therefore, does not merit
consideration and the petitioner is not entitled for the
reliefs as prayed for by him. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following order:
Criminal petition is dismissed.”
10. The co-ordinate Bench was considering the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah reported in 2020
SCC Online SC 412 where the Apex Court has enlarged
the scope of applicability of the PC Act to Co-operative
Societies and to Institutions which receives aid from the
State either direct or indirect. Therefore, the submission
of the learned senior counsel that Nirmithi Kendra is not
the one that could be brought within the ambit of PC Act
qua its employees is sans substance.
11. In the light of the issue being answered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Krishnegowda (supra), I decline to interfere with the
proceedings that are instituted against the petitioner by
the respondent-Lokayukta for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
The petition lacking merit stands rejected. Liberty is
reserved to the petitioner to avail of any remedy that is
available in law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30
On the same day of rejection of the petition on 22-08-2023, it
appears that the State Government notifies to all Nirmithi Kendras
that no post of Project Director should be filled without prior
permission of the State Government.
10. The Government by its order dated 29-10-2024 resolves
to shift the petitioner from the post of Project Director, Nirmithi
Kendra to the Karnataka State Building Centre (KARNIK). The
official memorandum reads as follows:
“ಅ
ಅ ಕೃತ ಾಪನಷಯ : ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ೋ , ಂ ನ ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ”ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ
(“) &ೇಂದ ರವರನು, &ಾ “- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ಉಪ !ೇ”ಶಕರ ಹು!ೆ3ಯ
ೇಮ&ಾ) ಆ!ೇಶ ೕಡು)7ರುವ ಬ ೆ9.
ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 1 ಕ>ೇ?ಯ e-Office ಏಕ ಕಡತ ಸಂAೆB: KARNIK/ADM/7/2024-
DIREC2 ಸ&ಾ”ರದ ಅ ೕಕ &ಾಯ”ದ “ಗಳD, ವಸ) ಇ:ಾAೆ ರವರ ಪತ ಸಂAೆB: ವ
ಇ 308 FೆG ಎ ಎಂ 2024 ಾಂಕ: 29.10.2024.
*****
ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆ:-
JೕಲKಂಡ ಷಯ&ೆK ಸಂಬಂ LದಂMೆ &ಾ “- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ; Aಾ Nರುವ ಉಪ !ೇ”ಶಕರ
ಹು!ೆ3 ೆ ೕ. ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ೋ , ರವರನು, ೇಮಕ Oಾಡಲು ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 1ರ ಈ ಕQೆಯ e-office
ಕಡತದ ; ಸ&ಾ”ರದ ಪ Rಾನ &ಾಯ”ದ “ಗಳD, ವಸ) ಇ:ಾAೆ Fಾಗೂ ಪದ (ತ7 ಅಧBTರು, &ಾ “-
ರವ? ೆ ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆಯ ; ಸ ;ಸ:ಾ ರುತ7!ೆ.
31
&ಾ “-: 345 :DqÀ½vÀ :01:2024:-6989 ಾಂಕ: 29.10.2024
ಆ!ೇಶ
JೕಲKಂಡ ಪ /ಾ7ವ ೆಯನು, ಸ&ಾ”ರವU ಪ? ೕ L, ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ 2ರ ಪತ ದ ; ೕ, ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ
ೋ , ರವರನು, &ಾ “- ಸಂ/ೆ0ಯ ಉಪ !ೇ”ಶಕರ ಹು!ೆ3 ೆ Fೊರಗು)7 ೆ ಆRಾರದ Jೕ:ೆ ಒಂದು
ವಷ”ದ ಅವ ೆ ಅಥXಾ ಮುಂ ನ ಆ!ೇಶದವYೆ ೆ ೇಮಕ OಾZ ಆ!ೇಶ FೊರZಸ:ಾ ರುತ7!ೆ.
ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕೂಡ:ೇ ಕತ”ವB&ೆK ವರ OಾZ&ೊಳ[ಲು Fಾಗೂ ಈ ಬ ೆ9 LOA ನು, ಒಂದು
Xಾರ!ೊಳ ೆ ಈ ಸಂ/ೆ0 ೆ ಒದ ಸಲು )\L!ೆ.
ಸ /-
_ಾ||&ೆ.ಎ£ï. ಾYಾಯಣ ೌಡ
!ೇ”ಶಕರು”
The Bagalkote Nirmithi Kendra relieves the petitioner by the
following order:
“ಸಂAೆB:cಅ$ಾ/ಆdಆdL/Lಆd-02/2023-24 376 ಾಂಕ: 29-06-2024
1
ಅ ಕೃತ ಾಪನಷಯ : ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ f ೕgೆ-h _ೈYೆಕhd (“) &ೇಂದ
$ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ ಇವರನು, /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\ಸುವ ಬ ೆ9.
ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ : ಾಂಕ:24/06/2024 ರಂದು ೕ ಆd.j )Oಾkಪlರ, OಾನB
ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು Fಾಗೂ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ c:ಾ; ಉಸು7Xಾ? ಸmವರ
ಅಧBTMೆಯ ; ಜರು ದ &ೆ.Z.ಇ ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ಾ ಸnೆಯ ; ೕZರುವ
ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳD.
-*-*-*-*-*-
ೕ ಆd.j )Oಾkಪlರ, OಾನB ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು Fಾಗೂ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ c:ಾ; ಉಸು7Xಾ?
ಸmವರ ಅಧBTMೆಯ ; ಾಂಕ:24/06/2024 ರಂದು ಜರು ದ &ೆ.Z.p ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ಾ ಸnೆಯ ;
(“) &ೇಂದ $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ ವ)Nಂದ &ೈ ೊಂಡ &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳ ಪ ಗ) ಪ? ೕಲ ೆ OಾZರುವ
32ಸಂದಭ”ದ ; &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳನು, ಅನುrಾhನ ೊ\ಸುವ shನ ; ?ೕtತ ಪ ಗ) /ಾ ಸ!ೆ ಇರುವUದು
ಮತು7 &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳ ; ಗುಣಮಟh &ಾಯು3&ೊಳ[ ರುವUದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದು3, ಸ&ಾ”ರದ &ಾಮ ಾ?ಗಳನು,
?ೕtತ ಮಟhದ ; ಮತು7 ಗುಣಮಟhದ ; ಅನುrಾhನ ೊ\ಸಲು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ (“) &ೇಂದ &ೆK ಒಬv
ದT ಮತು7 ಪ Oಾwಕ ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ”ಶಕ ಅವಶBಕMೆ ಇರುವUದ?ಂದ Fಾ &ಾಯ” ವ” ಸು)7ರುವ
ೕ ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ , ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ”ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ (“) &ೇಂxರ ಇವರನು,
ತTಣ ಂದ /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\ಸಲು OಾನB ಅಬ&ಾ? ಸmವರು !ೇ”ಶನ ೕZರುವಂMೆ ೕ
ಶಂಕರ ಂಗ ಾಗಪe ೋ , ೕಜ ಾ !ೇ”ಶಕರು $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ (“) &ೇಂದ ಇವರನು,
ತTಣ ಂದ /ೇXೆNಂದ jಡುಗ_ೆ ೊ\L ಆ!ೇ L!ೆ.
ಅಧBTರು
ಸ /-
$ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ (“) &ೇಂದ Fಾಗೂ
c:ಾ; &ಾ?ಗಳD $ಾಗಲ&ೋ’ೆ c:ೆ;.”
Two things become clear. The petitioner was moved out from the
post of Project Director, Nirmithi Kendra and had been relieved
from the said post on 29-06-2024 which the petitioner receives on
04-07-2024.
11. The petitioner challenges the said order dated
29-06-2024 before this Court in Writ Petition No.103730 of 2024.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as follows:
“This writ petition is filed under Article 226 r/w 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order
dated 29-06-2024 bearing No cಅ$ಾ / ಆd ಆd L-02 / 2023-24
(Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.3, in the
interest of justice and equity. Declare that the respondent
No.3 have no power to appoint through an outsource system to
33the Nirmithi Kendra and restrain the Deputy Commissioner not
to place any appointment order without the consent of the
Governing Body and pass any appropriate order or directions, as
deemed fit of this Court and restrain the respondents in issuing
the impugned order dated 29-06-2024 bearing No cಅ$ಾ/ಆdಆdL-
02/2023-24 (Annexure-F) and pass any appropriate orders or
directions in the circumstances of the case, including the order
as to the costs and etc.”
(Emphasis added)
The writ petition comes to be withdrawn on a memo being filed, by
the following order:
“Learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo seeking
withdrawal of writ petition.
2. In view of memo, writ petition is dismissed as not
pressed.”
On relieving, the 4th respondent/S.N.Hiremath, is sought to be
appointed to the post of Project Director, Nirmithi Kendra. The
petitioner approaches this Court without impleading the said
person. Relying on particular interim order granted in a different
circumstance, the petitioner secures an interim order at the hands
of this Court on 14-07-2025 in the present writ petition. The order
reads as follows:
“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
34
Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the
petitioner is appointed in the year 2012 which was approved on
16.08.2012. However, by the impugned order, the petitioner
has been relieved on Adhoc basis with Adhoc arrangement.
Therefore, the present petition.
Learned counsel relies on the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10370/2024 wherein in
identical circumstances, interim order is granted by this Court.
Accordingly, the petitioner deserves an interim order in this
case. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
There shall be stay of the operation and implementation
of the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 passed by 3rd
respondent vide Annexure-J till next date of hearing.”
The interim order is continued from time to time. This Bench, on
30-10-2025, had passed the following order:
“The petitioner, on the strength of the interim order, is
said to have joined service.
The Deputy Commissioner, who has passed a second
order of the same date, i.e., on 29.06.2024, shall file an
affidavit of explanation as to why a second order had to be
passed on the same day and serve it on the petitioner on
04.07.2024 notwithstanding the earlier order on 29.06.2024
having been served upon him and that has been raising a
challenge to the said order in Writ Petition 103730/2024. The
affidavit of the signatory to the said order dated 29.06.2024
shall be placed before this Court on the next date.
List the matter on 19.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m.
35If the affidavit could not be filed, the Deputy
Commissioner who has passed the order shall be present before
the Court.
Interim order subsisting, if any, is extended till the next
date of hearing.”
The affidavit to that effect is also filed. In all the pleadings of the
petitioner what comes to be missing is two orders viz., that the
petitioner was relieved from the post of Project Director, Bagalkote,
Nirmithi Kendra and was posted as Deputy Director, KARNIK.
12. The petitioner, suppressing all these facts, secures the
interim order at the hands of this Court, as if the petitioner has
continued to work in Bagalkot Nirmithi Kendra as on the date of
filing of the petition projecting two orders are passed one ante-
dated or otherwise. What is challenged in the subject petition is an
order dated 29-06-2024. The prayer and interim prayer that is
sought by the petitioner in the present petition are as follows:
1. “Writ of Certiorari or any other order or directions
quashing the impugned order bearing No
fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-24/376/1 dated 29-06-
2024 passed by the respondent No.3 as per
Annexure-J.
2. Any other writ or order or direction which deems fit by
this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.
36
INTERIM PRAYER
During the pendency of the above petition, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant stay, staying
the operation, execution, implementation and further
proceedings pursuant to the impugned order bearing No.
fC¨Á/DgïDgï¹/¹Dgï-02/2023-24/376/1 dated 29-06-2024 passed
by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J and further to issue
accused-interim directions directing the Respondent No.3 to
permit the petitioner to continue as the present Project Director
of the Nirmithi Kendra Bagalkote.”
(Emphasis added)
This is exactly what the petitioner sought in the earlier writ petition
which comes to be withdrawn. If the petitioner has challenged the
same and withdrawn it, it is ununderstandable as to how he can all
over again approach this Court and seek the same prayer. The
petitioner has undoubtedly abused the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit must meet its
dismissal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order if any
subsisting shall stand dissolved.
37
14. In the light of dismissal of the petition, the show cause
notice that was issued to the petitioner on 15-07-2025 be taken to
its logical conclusion without brooking any further delay.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand
disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ