Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in the case of Dadapeer Bhanuvalli v. State of Karnataka & Others [Writ Petition No. 100890 of 2022; 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298], delivered a significant ruling that underscores the wide ambit of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the General Recruitment Rules with respect to investigating allegations of misconduct arising out of recruitment processes. The petition was filed by Advocate Dadapeer Bhanuvalli, who was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor cum Government Pleader in 2014 pursuant to a recruitment notification issued in 2012. Following allegations of malpractice in the selection process, the Lokayukta Police registered a case implicating several individuals, including the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No.49. The Lokayukta recommended a departmental inquiry under Section 12(3) of the Act, which was duly entrusted by the State Government. Contesting this, the petitioner argued that the alleged misconduct pertained to a time before his appointment, and hence, he could not be subjected to an inquiry as a government servant. The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed his plea, relying on statutory provisions and earlier precedents, particularly the decision in Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil v. State of Karnataka.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocates Nagendra Naik and Mahesh Wodeyar, contended that the very foundation of the disciplinary action against him was flawed because the allegations stemmed from acts allegedly committed prior to his appointment as an Assistant Public Prosecutor cum Government Pleader. According to him, the concept of “misconduct” under service jurisprudence presupposes the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Since the recruitment notification was issued on 16.05.2012, and his appointment came only on 17.06.2014 (reporting for duty on 30.06.2014), any alleged acts before this date could not form the basis of a departmental inquiry. He further argued that the entrustment of inquiry to the Lokayukta was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory scheme. The petitioner also emphasized that departmental rules are designed to regulate the conduct of serving government employees and not to retrospectively scrutinize actions that occurred during candidacy. He asserted that allowing such an interpretation would create uncertainty and perpetually expose candidates to the risk of disciplinary proceedings for alleged wrongs committed before they entered service. Furthermore, he attempted to distinguish his case from other instances of recruitment malpractice by highlighting that he had submitted a detailed explanation to the observation note, yet the Lokayukta proceeded to frame charges against him without considering his reply in its true spirit.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by AGA G.K. Hiregoudar for the State and Advocate Anil Kale for the Lokayukta, opposed the plea vehemently. They submitted that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is not limited to acts committed during service but extends to irregularities committed in connection with the recruitment process itself. Citing the provisions of Sections 7(2) and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, they argued that the Lokayukta is empowered to investigate even suo motu instances of maladministration, corruption, or misconduct. They emphasized Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, which expressly provides that misconduct by a “candidate” can be taken into account. This rule, they asserted, closes the very gap that the petitioner was attempting to exploit, as it makes clear that the integrity of the recruitment process is a matter of public interest and subject to scrutiny. The respondents also pointed out that the very same issue had already been adjudicated in the case of Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil v. State of Karnataka (2021), where a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court held that allegations of misconduct relating to recruitment processes—even if predating the candidate’s formal appointment—can indeed be investigated by the Lokayukta. Importantly, that ruling had been tested before the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere, thereby affirming its correctness. In light of this binding precedent, the respondents contended that the petitioner’s challenge was not only meritless but also an attempt to evade accountability under the guise of technical objections.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions and examining the statutory framework, the division bench dismissed the writ petition. The Court began by examining the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, particularly Sections 7(2) and 9, which authorize the Lokayukta to investigate maladministration and misconduct either upon receiving a complaint or even suo motu. The bench noted that these provisions confer a broad investigative mandate upon the Lokayukta, enabling it to probe allegations that undermine the integrity of public offices and recruitment processes. The Court then referred to Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which explicitly states that misconduct by a candidate can be considered. The inclusion of the term “candidate” was held to be decisive, as it indicated the legislature’s intent to extend disciplinary scrutiny not just to serving employees but also to aspirants who secured appointments through dubious means. The Court emphasized that recruitment to public posts is not merely a matter of private concern but a question of public trust, and allowing candidates to manipulate the process without accountability would erode the credibility of the system.
The bench further relied on the precedent in Smt. Ranjana Suresh Patil v. State of Karnataka, where a similar contention was raised concerning irregularities in the same recruitment notification dated 16.05.2012. In that case, the coordinate bench had categorically rejected the argument that pre-appointment misconduct was beyond the scope of investigation, holding instead that ensuring fairness in recruitment requires scrutiny of the entire process. The High Court observed that since the Supreme Court had not interfered with that decision, the principle stood affirmed and was binding on the present bench. The Court also noted that the allegations against the petitioner—namely collusion with the Director of Prosecution, manipulation of answer scripts, and other malpractices—were serious in nature and directly related to his eligibility and integrity as a candidate. These could not be brushed aside on the ground that they predated his formal appointment.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner was valid, lawful, and within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. It reiterated that public confidence in the fairness of recruitment processes is integral to good governance and that any attempt to undermine such processes strikes at the very foundation of constitutional values. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the interim relief sought by the petitioner was denied.