Lokayukta’s Power to Probe Pre‑Appointment Recruitment Misconduct Reaffirmed

Case: DADAPEER BHANUVALLI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA | Court: Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench | Date: 19 August 2025 | Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, C.J. and C.M. Poonacha, J. | Result: Writ Petition dismissed

Introduction

This decision addresses a recurring and significant question in Karnataka’s public employment jurisprudence: Can the Karnataka Lokayukta investigate recruitment malpractices that allegedly occurred before a candidate entered government service, and can such investigation form the basis of departmental proceedings against the now-serving public servant?

The petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader (APP/AGP) appointed pursuant to a 2012 recruitment, challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s (KSAT) order upholding (i) the State Government’s entrustment of departmental inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (CCA Rules), and (ii) the Articles of Charge issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Lokayukta. The gravamen of the petitioner’s challenge was that the alleged misconduct pertained to his status as a “candidate” prior to appointment, and thus lay beyond the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction.

The case sits at the intersection of the Lokayukta’s statutory remit under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (the Act) and the disciplinary regime governing recruitment misconduct under Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (General Recruitment Rules).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2021 KAR 1980), which had already upheld Lokayukta’s jurisdiction in challenges arising from the same 2012 APP/AGP recruitment process, and noting that the Supreme Court declined to interfere in Sarojini Veerappa Batakurki v. State of Karnataka (SLP(C) Nos. 13918-13919/2021, order dated 19.11.2024), the Court held:

• The Lokayukta can investigate allegations related to recruitment irregularities even if the acts occurred before the appointee joined service.
• Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules expressly contemplates “candidate” misconduct and supports departmental action despite the misconduct predating appointment.
• The definition of “public servant” in Section 2(12) of the Act (“who is or was at any time”) coupled with Sections 7(2)/7(2A) and 9 of the Act permits initiation and conduct of investigation and departmental proceedings in such circumstances.
• Reliance on State of Karnataka v. Kempaiah (1998) 6 SCC 103 and the Coordinate Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. M. Iliyas (W.A. No. 100628/2017 c/w W.P. No. 102913/2018, order dated 16.06.2025) was misplaced given the different factual matrix and the absence of analysis of Rule 20 vis-à-vis Sections 7 and 9 of the Lokayukta Act in those cases.

Analysis

Statutory Framework Applied

• Section 2(12)(d), Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: “Public servant” includes a Government servant who “is or was at any time” in service. This temporal breadth enables oversight of persons who are presently public servants, regardless of the timing of the alleged misconduct.
• Sections 7(2) and 7(2A), the Act: Empower the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta to investigate actions taken by or with the approval of public servants. Section 7(2A) authorizes investigation upon State Government reference, even beyond the subjects under 7(1)-(2).
• Section 9, the Act: Lays down the complaint, preliminary inquiry, and investigation procedure, including: forwarding complaint/opinion (Section 9(3)(a)); seeking comments from the public servant (Section 9(3)(b)); and provisions regarding timelines (Sections 9(3A), 9(3B)). The proviso clarifies that delay does not vitiate proceedings.
• Section 8(1)(a) and Second Schedule (d), the Act: Bars investigation into grievances concerning service conditions like appointments, removals, pay and discipline. However, prior binding authority (Ranjana Suresh Patil) reconciles this by distinguishing “grievance” about service conditions from “allegations” of corruption/maladministration in recruitment, and by noting the special pathway under Section 7(2A) upon State reference.
• Rule 20, General Recruitment Rules, 1977: Squarely addresses “candidate” misconduct (impersonation, fabricated/tampered documents, false statements, suppression, unfair means), allowing both criminal and disciplinary consequences and debarring measures. This rule is pivotal in sustaining departmental action against a person who, although a candidate at the time of wrongdoing, is now a public servant.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2021 KAR 1980:

   • Arising from the same 2012 APP/AGP recruitment process, the Division Bench framed and answered whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction and whether Rule 20 could be invoked.
   • Held that the phrase “who is or was at any time” in Section 2(12) brings present public servants within Lokayukta purview even when the alleged misconduct predates appointment.
   • Upheld the exercise of suo motu or State-referred investigative powers under Sections 7 and 9, and validated departmental action premised on Rule 20.
   • Concluded that no illegality or jurisdictional error tainted the entrustment of inquiry or issuance of charges.

2. Sarojini Veerappa Batakurki v. State of Karnataka, SLP(C) Nos. 13918-13919/2021 (order dated 19.11.2024):

   • The Supreme Court declined to interfere with Ranjana Suresh Patil, cementing the principle within Karnataka.

3. Vijaychandra Prabhu B. v. State of Karnataka, R.P. No. 100050/2020 (order dated 28.06.2021):

   • Review petitions against Ranjana Suresh Patil were dismissed, reinforcing finality.

4. State of Karnataka v. Kempaiah (1998) 6 SCC 103:

   • Interpreted “action” in Section 2(1) of the Act to include administrative actions taken by way of recommendations, findings, or in any other manner.
   • The present Bench acknowledged Kempaiah but emphasized that the Ranjana Suresh Patil line of authority—considering Rule 20 and the Lokayukta Act in tandem—governs recruitment misconduct cases.

5. State of Karnataka v. M. Iliyas, W.A. No. 100628/2017 c/w W.P. No. 102913/2018 (order dated 16.06.2025):

   • Addressed demotion based on educational qualifications and regularization issues; not a recruitment corruption probe via Lokayukta.
   • The Bench distinguished it as factually disparate and noted that the interplay of Rule 20 with Sections 7 and 9 was not examined there. Hence, it does not detract from Ranjana Suresh Patil’s ratio.

Core Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds from a combined reading of the Lokayukta Act and the General Recruitment Rules, anchored in binding precedent:

• Coverage of present public servants for past conduct: Section 2(12) defines “public servant” to include anyone who “is or was at any time” a government servant. The present status as a public servant suffices to bring the individual within investigative jurisdiction, irrespective of when the alleged wrongdoing occurred.
• Enabling power to investigate: Sections 7(2) and 7(2A) allow investigation into actions taken by or with the approval of public servants. Here, the allegations implicated senior public servants (e.g., the Director of Prosecution) in recruitment manipulation, providing a jurisdictional hook.
• Procedural compliance: Section 9’s framework—copy of complaint/opinion, opportunity to comment, and powers to secure records—was followed. The Act’s timelines are directory; delay does not vitiate proceedings (Section 9(3A), (3B) proviso).
• Rule 20 as the disciplinary bridge: Rule 20 contemplates candidate-stage misconduct and permits disciplinary action after appointment. Thus, a candidate’s pre-appointment fraud can lead to departmental proceedings once the person is in service.
• Reconciliation with Section 8 bar: While Section 8(1)(a) read with Second Schedule (d) excludes “grievances” about service conditions (appointments, etc.), the present case concerns “allegations” of recruitment corruption/maladministration—precisely the domain of Lokayukta oversight. Moreover, a State reference under Section 7(2A) independently validates investigation.
• Binding effect of prior Division Bench: Given that Ranjana Suresh Patil dealt with the same recruitment, statutory provisions, and issues, and was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, the present Bench followed it as controlling authority.

Why Kempaiah and M. Iliyas Do Not Alter the Outcome

• Kempaiah (1998) 6 SCC 103: Focused on the meaning of “action” under the Act in the context of a specific preliminary inquiry and FIR. It did not restrict the Lokayukta’s competence to cases where the alleged misconduct occurred during service nor did it consider Rule 20’s candidate-misconduct dimension.
• M. Iliyas (2025): Concerned a demotion based on qualification and regularization, not a corruption-led recruitment manipulation probe. The Bench noted that Rule 20 vis-à-vis Sections 7/9 of the Act was not analyzed there, making it inapplicable to the present fact pattern.

Impact and Prospective Significance

• Consolidation of Jurisdictional Principle: The decision reaffirms that Lokayukta’s oversight extends to recruitment-stage malpractices subsequently attributable to serving public servants. Officers cannot avoid disciplinary scrutiny by arguing that misconduct occurred before appointment.
• Strengthening Recruitment Integrity: By validating departmental proceedings grounded in a Lokayukta probe, the judgment bolsters deterrence against cheating, manipulation of answer scripts, impersonation, and unfair means during public recruitment.
• Operational Guidance for the State: Departments can proceed with entrusting inquiries to the Lokayukta under Section 7(2A) and CCA Rules, issue Articles of Charge based on Section 12(3) reports, and invoke Rule 20 where candidate misconduct emerges.
• Boundary of Section 8(1)(a): The decision maintains that the statutory bar is aimed at grievance-type service matters, not at corruption “allegations.” This delineation will guide future litigation on maintainability.
• Procedural Safeguards Still Matter: While delays do not vitiate proceedings, principles of natural justice—notice, opportunity to respond, and reasoned decisions—remain essential to sustain disciplinary outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Entrustment of enquiry: The State Government’s act of referring a matter to the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta for investigation and/or disciplinary inquiry (here, under Section 7(2A) and Rule 11 CCA Rules).
• Section 12(3) report: A Lokayukta report recommending action after investigation, sent to the competent authority.
• Articles of Charge: Formal statement of allegations issued to a public servant in departmental proceedings, detailing the misconduct and the factual foundation.
• “Public servant” (Section 2(12)): Inclusive definition covering anyone who is now or was at any time a government servant; used to ground Lokayukta’s jurisdiction over serving officers even for pre-appointment misconduct.
• Grievance vs. Allegation (Section 8): A “grievance” is a complaint about service conditions (appointment, pay, etc.) typically excluded from Lokayukta’s purview. An “allegation” concerns corruption, abuse of power, or maladministration—squarely within the Lokayukta’s remit.
• Rule 20 (General Recruitment Rules): The key disciplinary hook for misconduct as a candidate (e.g., forged documents, manipulation, unfair means), authorizing criminal/disciplinary consequences even after appointment.
• Suo motu investigation: Lokayukta/Upalokayukta can initiate investigation on their own motion under Section 7, subject to procedural safeguards in Section 9.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Dadapeer Bhanuvalli v. State of Karnataka is not merely a reiteration but a consolidation of a crucial accountability principle in public employment: recruitment fraud does not become immunized upon appointment. By aligning Section 2(12) (“is or was at any time”), Sections 7 and 9 of the Lokayukta Act, and Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules, the Court affirms that the Lokayukta may investigate and the State may pursue disciplinary action for candidate-stage misconduct once the individual is in service.

With the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere in the cognate litigation from the same recruitment cycle, the legal position in Karnataka is now settled. Future challenges to Lokayukta-anchored departmental proceedings in recruitment fraud cases will face a high bar, provided procedural fairness is observed and the allegations pertain to corruption or maladministration rather than mere service-condition grievances. This judgment thus strengthens the integrity of public recruitment and the institutional capacity to address malfeasance at its source.

Key takeaways

• Lokayukta jurisdiction covers pre-appointment recruitment misconduct when the subject is now a public servant.
• Rule 20 directly enables disciplinary action for “candidate” misconduct even after appointment.
• Section 8’s bar applies to grievances about service conditions, not to corruption allegations.
• Ranjana Suresh Patil (DB) is binding; SC’s refusal to interfere further stabilizes the doctrine.
• Kempaiah and M. Iliyas do not undermine this position on the facts and legal issues at hand.