The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the Lokayukta institution lacks the authority to recommend inquiries exclusively to itself.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum emphasized that the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta serve in an advisory capacity and do not possess enforcement powers.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by MG Yathish, a Senior Environment Officer at the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). In 2017, a complaint was lodged with Yathish alleging environmental violations by a pharmaceutical firm, Jubilant Generics Limited, in Nanjangud. Yathish investigated the complaint and concluded that no effluents were being discharged into the Kapila (Kabini) river as claimed.
Subsequently, the complainant approached the Lokayukta on September 23, 2017. The Upalokayukta then submitted a report to the state government recommending an inquiry against the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) and Yathish himself. Additionally, the Upalokayukta suggested that the inquiry be conducted by the Lokayukta, as per Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.
In response, the KSPCB passed a resolution on December 8, 2021, urging the state government to close the proceedings. However, on September 7, 2023, the state government directed the inquiry to be conducted by the Lokayukta, pursuant to Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.
Yathish argued that Rule 14-A only applies to state government servants and not to employees of Statutory Boards like the KSPCB, which operate under their own regulations.
Dismissing this argument, the court held that state pollution control boards are obligated to adhere to directives issued by either the Central Board or the state government in carrying out their functions. Additionally, the court asserted that if the state believes that a KSPCB employee has failed in their duty to prevent pollution, it has the authority to order an inquiry against them.
However, the court clarified that the Lokayukta cannot suggest to the state government that the inquiry be entrusted to itself.
“The state government retains the discretion to independently assess the recommendation, conduct an inquiry against the petitioner, and determine whether the inquiry should be assigned to the Lokayukta, the Upa-Lokayukta, or the petitioner’s Disciplinary Authority, as outlined in Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. It is reiterated that the government should not be swayed by the Upa-Lokayukta’s recommendation to assign the inquiry to itself; instead, it must make an impartial decision,” the court stated.