Karnataka High Court Reinstates Regulation Allowing KPTCL to Use Lokayukta for Disciplinary Inquiries
In a significant legal development, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court has restored a crucial provision that permits the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL) to delegate its disciplinary inquiries to the Lokayukta. This decision effectively reverses a previous ruling by a single bench, which had struck down the regulation on grounds of potential bias.
Background of the Case
The case originated from disciplinary proceedings against V Ravindra Reddy, a mechanic Grade-II in Bescom's Chikkaballapura Urban division. Reddy was implicated in a bribery case in 2015, leading to a chargesheet filed by Lokayukta police. Subsequently, the Upa Lokayukta submitted an inquiry report recommending disciplinary action against him.
Based on this report, the disciplinary inquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta, with the additional registrar (enquiries) appointed as the inquiry officer. Reddy then challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) Regulations in the high court.
Single Bench Decision Overturned
On October 16, 2024, a single bench declared Regulation 14(A) unconstitutional and quashed the Lokayukta's recommendations to impose compulsory retirement on Reddy. The bench cited a real likelihood of bias, arguing that once the Lokayukta recommended disciplinary action, it could not function as an impartial inquiry authority. This was deemed a structural defect violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
However, the division bench, comprising Justices DK Singh and S Rachaiah, allowed a writ appeal filed by the Lokayukta. They held that there was no statutory bar preventing the same institution from conducting both investigation and inquiry, especially when different wings were involved. The bench emphasized that the presumption of bias by the single bench was palpably incorrect.
Key Observations by the Division Bench
The division bench made several critical observations in its judgment:
- The institution of Lokayukta acts as an independent body against corruption, and strengthening it is essential in the current context.
- The single judge's view that acquittal in a criminal case would lead to vengeful departmental action was completely unfounded.
- Recommendation of punishment does not establish bias, and the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta playing dual roles does not violate the Lokayukta Act.
- Inquiry officers in the Lokayukta are judicial officers deputed under specific rules, and casting doubt on their integrity unfairly undermines their functional ability.
The bench further stated, "There is no empirical basis to conclude that there is a ‘manifest arbitrariness' in conducting the domestic inquiry... The finding of manifest arbitrariness is based on hypothetical assumptions rather than evidence. There cannot be any bias of the institution against an individual."
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinstates Regulation 14(A), enabling KPTCL to continue using the Lokayukta for disciplinary inquiries. The division bench noted that the single bench's decision had disrupted the institutional functioning of the Lokayukta over four decades without substantial material or empirical data. By setting aside the earlier findings, the court has reaffirmed the Lokayukta's role as a cornerstone in anti-corruption efforts within Karnataka's public sector.
The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining robust mechanisms for accountability while ensuring that legal provisions are interpreted in a manner that supports institutional integrity and efficiency.
