C. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS. versus KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 21-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
C. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS. 
JULY 21, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 : Section 15. 
c 
Deputation-Police Officers sent on-Status of-Held : A person 
continues to remain an employee of the lending authority with which the 
relationship of master and servant remains until it is terminated-Hence, 
police officers sent on deputation to Lokayukta by State Government continue 
to remain as public servants of the State Government as long as they are not 
absorbed in the Lokayukta. 
D 
Deputation-Additional functions-Entrustment of-By lending 
authority--Police officers of the State sent on deputation to Lokayukta were 
entrusted with additional functions under S. 17 of the Prevention of Co"uption 
Act, 1988-Legality of-Held : Normally, leading authority should not entrust E 
extra duties to its employees sent on deputation-But such extra duties are 
legal if they are entrusted by virtue of statutory powers and not objected to 
by the borrowing authority-Hence, entrustment of additional functions to 
police officers being under statutory powers is within the jurisdiction of State 
Government-Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988, S.17. 
F 
Deputation--Employees sent on-To Lokayukta -Extra work-
Entrustment of-By leading authority-Validity of-Held: State Government 
should inform the Lokayukta of its desire to entrust extra· work to its employees 
sent on deputation-But for good reasons if the Lokayukta objects to such 
extra work but if State Governmef!t insists on such entrustment the Lokayukta G 
can direct the employees on deputation not to take up such extra work-But 
once the Lokayukta has not objected to such entrustment of work, it should 
not raise objection when these employees are halfway through the extra 
work-However, the public servants against whom investigations were going 
on have no right to raise such objection-Karna/aka Lokayukta (Cadre, 
Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules H 
837 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A 1988, R. 3 and Sch I and fl. 
' 
"' 
Posts-{;reation of-By administrative order-Validity-New post of 
Director General of Police, Lokayukta created by administrative order without · 
amending the recruitment Rules to include the said post in the Lokayukta 
cadre-Held : Still the said post created in the Lokayukta Police Wing 
B' intended to be and must be treated as part of the staff of the Lokayukta in 
the Police Wing-Therefore, while ihe Police Wing in the Lokayukta is under 
the general overall control of the Director General of Police, still the staff 
.. 
and the Director General himself are under the administrative and disciplinary 
f 
control of the Lokayukta. 
c 
The State Government entrusted the functions of investigation under 
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to the Police officers 
of the State on deputation with the Lokayukta under Section 15(1) of the 
Karnataka State Lokayukta Act, 1984. The State Government also created 
the post of Director General of Police by an Administrative order without 
D 
including the said post in the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment 
and Conditions of Service of the Officers and the Employees) Rules, 1988. 
The petitioners, against whom investigation was going on, filed a writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the aforesaid directions, which was 
dismissed. Hence this Special leave Petition. 
E 
The following points arose before this Court: 
(l) Was it permissible for the State Government to create the post of 
Director General of Police, Lokayukta by way of an administrative order 
though the said post was not included in the relevant rules of recruitment 
of the staff of the Lokayukta? If permissible can it be said that the said 
F 
officer was independent and outside the administrative and disciplinary control 
of the Lokayukta? 
(2) Is the entrustment off unctions under the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 by the Government to the police officers on deputation with the 
Lokayukta without jurisdiction? 
G 
(3) In what manner can the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 anil Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 
1984 be harmonised? 
,_ 
( 4) rs the further investigation in the present cases to be continued by 
r 
the police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta? 
H 
Dismissing the Petition, this Court 
• 
C.RANGAS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.