{"id":64178,"date":"1998-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998"},"modified":"2016-04-19T04:53:48","modified_gmt":"2016-04-18T23:23:48","slug":"c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","title":{"rendered":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Venkataswami, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC. RANGASWAMAIAH & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/07\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK. VENKATASWAMI, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  last  day\tbefore\t  summer  vacation,  namely,
\n14.5.1998, we  dismissed these Special Leave Petition at the
\nstage of  admission and stated that we shall pass a reasoned
\norder later. We are passing that order now.\n<\/p>\n
     These seven special leave petitions have been preferred
\nagainst the  common Judgment  of the Karnataka High Court in
\nWrit Petition  Nos.24215\/97, 32653\/97,\t33388\/97,  27056\/97,
\n33852\/97 and  4361\/98. The  judgment, in  fact, disposed  of
\nseveral other writ petitions also and in addition considered
\nthe correctness of the judgment dated 12.8.1997 of a learned
\nsingle Judge  of that  Court rendered  in writ\tPetition No.
\n17819 of  1994 against\twhich writ  Appeals Nos. 5081\/97 and
\n5071\/97\t were\trespectively  preferred\t by  the  petitioner
\ntherein and the State of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
     The  point\t  raised  in   these  SLPs  is\twhether\t the
\ninvestigation  under   section\t17   of\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act,\t 1988 entrusted by the state of Karnataka to
\nthe police  officers of\t the State having the requisite rank
\ncould still  be said to be vitiated because of the fact that
\nthe said  officers were\t on deputation to the police wing of
\nthe Karnataka State Lok Ayukta at the relevant time?\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tof the\tcase are as follows: The petitioners
\nbefore us  file writ  petitions contending  that the  police
\nofficers on  deputation with  the Lok  Ayukta could not have
\nbeen entrusted\twith the  investigation under  section 17 of
\nthe prevention\tof Corruption  Act, 1988.  In writ  petition
\n17819\/94 filed\tearlier by another public servant which went
\nbefore a  learned single  Judge\t of  that  Court,  the\tsame
\nquestions were\traised. A learned single Judge of that Court
\nwhile  however\t rejecting  the\t  contention  of   the\tWrit
\nPetitioner in  writ petition  No. 17819\/94  that the  police
\nofficers sent  on deputation  to the  Lok Ayukta to ‘assist’
\nthe said  authority under  section 15(1)  of  the  Karnataka
\nState Lok Ayukta Act, 1984 would cease to be police officers
\nfor purposes  of section  17 of the prevention of corruption
\nAct, 1988,  held that  the petition  was liable to be partly
\nallowed on  the basis f the following reasoning. The learned
\nJudge held  that in  view of section 15(2) of the Lok Ayukta
\nAct which  required the\t staff of  the\tLok  Ayukta  to\t act
\nwithout ‘fear’\tin the\tdischarge  of  their  functions\t and
\nsection 15(4)  of the said Act- which vested ‘administrative
\nand disciplinary  control’ of the staff in the Lok Ayukta, –
\nthe independence  of the  Lok Ayukta  as an  autonomous body
\nwould be  affected if the police officers on deputation with
\nthe  Lok   Ayukta   were   entrusted   with   functions\t  of
\ninvestigation  under   section\t17   of\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act,\t 1988 and  that,  therefore,  such  officers
\nshould\tnot   have  been   asked   to\tconduct\t  any\tsuch
\ninvestigation. The  learned Single Judge, however, sustained
\nthe investigation  already made,  by invoking  the de  facto
\ndoctrine laid  down by\tthe Supreme  Court in Gokaraju Ranga
\nRaju vs.  State\t of  Andhra  Pradesh<\/a>  [1981  (3)  SCC  132].
\nQuestion arose\tas to  the position  of the post of director
\nGeneral of  Police in the Lok Ayukta created w.e.f. 21.12.92
\nwhich post  was however\t not included in the rules governing
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta and  to the  effect of\tanother notification
\ndated 22.12.92\tissued by the State Government under Section
\n17 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 designating all
\nthe Inspectors\tof Police, Karnataka Lok Ayukta to be police
\nofficers for  purposes of  the proviso\tto section 17 of the
\nsaid  Act.   The  learned   judge  held\t  that\tthe   latter
\nnotification in\t so far as it placed the said officers under
\nthe ‘general  and overall  control and\tsupervision’ of\t the
\nDirector  General,  Bureau  of\tInvestigation,\tLok  Ayukta,
\nBangalore –  rather than  under the  Lok Ayukta – as was the
\nposition under an earlier notification dated 2.11.1992 which
\nhad vested  such control and supervision in the Lok Ayukta –
\nwas bad\t inasmuch as  it jeopardised the independence of the
\nLok Ayukta,  particularly when\tthe post of Director General
\nof the\tBureau of Investigation, Lok Ayukta was not included
\namong the  posts listed\t in the Karnataka Lok Ayukta (Cadre,
\nRecruitment and\t conditions of\tService of  the Officers and
\nthe Employees) Rules, 1988. The learned Judge also held that
\nthe   notification    dated   12.12.1992   mentioned   above
\ndesignating the\t inspectors of Police who were on deputation
\nin the\tKarnataka Lok  Ayukta to  be police  officers  under
\nsection 17  of the  prevention of  Corruption Act,  1988 and
\nthat the  notification dated 26.5.19986 issued under Section
\n2(s) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 whereby Offices of
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta throughout the state were declared as Police
\nstations respect  of jurisdiction  mentioned against each of
\nthem –\tcould not  be of  any help  to the state inasmuch as
\nthose police  officers on  deputation in  the police wing of
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta could  not have been asked to under take any
\nfunctions other\t than those of ‘assisting’ the Lok Ayukta as
\nspecified in  section 15(1)  of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1984. In
\nthe result, the learned single Judge directed that, from the
\nstage at  which the investigation stood under the prevention
\nof Corruption  Act, 1988,  as on  the date of the Judgement,
\nthe Police  wing\/Bureau of  investigation of  the Lok Ayukta
\n‘shall cease’  all investigations  but that  this would not,
\nhowever, prevent the said agency from transferring the cases
\nfor further  investigation and\tappropriate  action  to\t any
\nother agency  competent to  investigate the  same. So far as
\nthe investigation  which was  already  made  by\t the  police
\nofficers of  the Bureau\t was  concerned,  –  though  it\t was
\nsustained under\t de facto  doctrine, – it was still observed
\nthat the  same would  be  subject  to\t the  right  of\t the
\nconcerned public servants to prove that prejudice was caused
\nto them\t on account  of the entrustment of the investigation
\nto such\t officers who  were on deputation. the writ petition
\nNo. 17819 of 1994 was allowed to the extent stated above.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  writ petition  having been  partly allowed as
\nstated above  – both  the petitioner  therein and  the State
\nfiled Writ   Appeals  as stated earlier. Other officers like
\nthe petitioners in these SLPs who filed fresh writ petitions\n<\/p>\n
– had  their writ  petitions  clubbed  with  the  said\tWrit
\nAppeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The Division  Bench dismissed  the writ petitions filed
\nby the\tpetitioners as\talso the  writ Appeal  of  the\twrit
\npetitioner in  writ petition  17819 of\t1994 and allowed the
\nWrit Appal  filed by  the State.  It held  that\t even  after
\ndeputation, there  could be a “dual” role on the part of the
\npolice officers\t in their functions, namely, functions under
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta and  functions in  discharge of\t the  duties
\nentrusted to  them by  the State  of  Karnataka,  under\t the
\nPrevention  of\tCorruption  Act,  1988.\t It,  however,\theld
\nreversing the  view of\tthe learned  Single Judge  that\t the
\nnotification dated 22.12.1992 issued under section 17 of the
\nprevention  of\t Corruption  Act,   1988   designating\t all
\nInspectors on  deputation in  the  Lok\tAyukta\tas  officers
\ncompetent for  purpose of  Section 17  of the  Act  and\t the
\nnotification dated  26.5.1986 issued  under section  2(s) of
\nthe Code  of Criminal  Procedure designating  all offices of
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta in  the State as Police Stations – indicated
\nthat these  police  officer’s  though  on  deputation,\twere
\nentrusted with\tthese powers  of investigation, by virtue of
\nstatutory power. The Division Bench further held that though
\nthe  Director\tgeneral\t of  Police  newly  attached  w.e.f.
\n21.11.92 to the Bureau of Investigation of Lok Ayukta by way
\nof an  administrative order  of the  Government was to be in
\ncontrol and  supervision of  the police\t staff\tin  the\t Lok
\nAyukta and  though the\tsaid post  of  Director\t General  of
\nPolice\twas   not  –   by  appropriate\t amendment  of\t the
\nrecruitment rule  of the  Lok Ayukta Staff – included in the
\ncadre of  posts in the police wing of the Lok ayukta – still
\nit had\tto be taken that the said Director General of Police
\nwas under the administrative and disciplinary control of the
\nLok  Ayukta  and  therefore  the  above\t notification  dated
\n22.12.1992  could   not\t be   treated  as   invalid  or\t  as
\njeopardising the  independence of  the Lok  ayukta. It\talso
\nheld that  the appointment  of the said Director General and
\nthe notification  placing the  police officers\tof  the\t Lok
\nAyukta under  his control  did not  amount to  divesting the
\npowers of  the\tLok  ayukta  in\t relation  to  these  police
\noffences nor to vesting the said powers only in the Director
\nGeneral of  police. It observed that dual functions could be
\nperformed by  these officers  in relation  to the  two Acts,
\nnamely the  Prevention of  Corruption Act and the Lok Ayukta
\nAct and\t such a\t situation of dual control could not be said
\nto   be\t  alien\t  to   criminal\t  jurisprudence\t  concerning
\ninvestigation of  crimes. In other words. These officers who
\nwere of\t the  requisite\t rank  as  per\tsection\t 17  of\t the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act,\t1988 could not be said to be
\nincompetent to\tinvestigate into  offences assigned  to them
\nunder that  Act by  the competent  authority  by  virtue  of
\nstatutory powers  under Section\t 17 thereof or to the extent
\nnot  excluded\tby  the\t Lok  Ayukta.  The  Division  Bench,
\ntherefore, held\t that the  further investigation against the
\npetitioners could  be continued\t through the police officers
\non deputation with the Lok Ayukta.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  also to  also to refer to an office Memorandum
\ndated 2.9.1997\tissued by  the Lok Ayukta after the judgment
\nof the\tlearned Single\tJudge. The  Lok ayukta issued office
\nmemorandum dated  2.9.1997 to the effect that in view of the
\njudgment in the writ petition, all police officers in charge
\nof police  stations of the Lok ayukta, could take cognizance
\nand investigate\t offences punishable under the Prevention of
\ncorruption Act,\t 1988 and  the IPC  but that keeping in view
\nsection 17  of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they
\nwere  to   obtain  necessary   orders  from  the  respective
\nSuperintendents of  Police, attached to the Lok ayukta – who
\nin their  turn would  report to\t the Lok Ayukta a or Upa Lok
\nAyukta, as  the case  may  be  –  with\treference  to  their
\nrespective jurisdictions  through the  Inspector General  of
\nPolice (except\tin trap\t cases). The  memorandum stated that
\nthe report of the police officers should be submitted to the
\nLok- Ayukta  or Upa  Lok Ayukta,  as the case may be through
\nthe IGP\t immediately after  such action\t was  taken  in\t the
\nproceedings. It\t further stated that the IGP would place the
\nFIR, the  evidence collected  and  the\tfinal  investigation
\nreport before  the Lok\tAyukta and that before filing charge
\nsheet for  prosecution or  filing closure reports, orders of
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta or  Upa Lok  Ayukta –  as the  case may be –
\nwould have  to be obtained. The validity of this Memorandum,
\ntherefore, fell\t for consideration before the Division Bench
\nin the\tlight of  the other  findings given  by the Division
\nBench reversing the opinion of the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     In regard\tto the\tabove Memorandum  of the  Lok Ayukta
\ndated 2.9.97,  the Division Bench held that it was issued by
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta only  in view of the Judgment of the learned
\nSingle\tJudge  and  Govt.  notification\t dated\t20.8.97,  to
\novercome the  difficulties faced  by the  police officers in
\nthe Lok ayukta. The office Memorandum purported to have been
\nissued under  section 15(4) of the karnataka Lok Ayukta Act.
\nThe  Bench  held  that\tthe  Lok  ayukta  had  no  authority
\nstatutorily  delegated\t to  it\t to  issue  such  an  office
\nMemorandum. The\t Bench held  that, in the light of the views
\nexpressed in  the judgment  of the  Division Bench  that the
\nDirector General  attached to  the  Lok\t Ayukta\t was  to  be
\ntreated as  under the  administrative  control\tof  the\t Lok
\nAyukta,\t the   memorandum   had\t  become   `redundant’\t and
\n‘unworkable.’  Even   otherwise\t the  Court  would  have  no
\nhesitation to  set aside  the same  on\tground\tof  want  of
\njurisdiction or\t as being  in excess  of jurisdiction of the
\nLok ayukta.  The Division Bench, however, clarified that the
\nsetting aside  of the  said Memorandum did not mean that the
\nLok Ayukta  had no  administrative and\tdisciplinary control
\nover the police officers on deputation. It held that in case
\nthe Lok ayukta directed a police officer  ‘not to proceed in
\nrelation to a case’, such a police officer could not venture
\nto initiate  investigation. A direction not to go ahead with
\nentire duties  entrusted to  him by the Government under the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be given by the Lok
\nayukta only  under specified  and exceptional  circumstances
\nsuch as\t – when there was “excess loaded of work” in the Lok
\nAyukta which  might not consequently leave adequate time for
\ninvestigation of  offences being  investigated\tby  the\t Lok
\nAyukta.\t These\t exceptions,  the   Bench  held,   were\t not
\nexhaustive and\tthere could  well be  other situations where
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta could direct its officers not to take up the
\nextra work  entrusted to  them\tby    the  State  under\t the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act, 1988. The Division Bench thus
\nallowed the Writ Appeal filed by the State and dismissed the
\nWrit Appeal  of the  petitioner in  W.P. 17819\tof 1994\t and
\ndismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended\tin  these  special  leave  petitions
\nbefore us  by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
\nSri Gopal  Subramanyam that  the  Division  Bench  erred  in
\ndismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, that
\nthe entire  investigation under the Prevention of corruption
\nAct so\tfar conducted  by the  police officers\tof  the\t Lok
\nAyukta must  be treated\t as illegal and that the entrustment
\nof the\tremaining investigation\t to these officers could not
\nbe permitted.  In other\t words, it  was contended  that\t the
\nentire proceedings must be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  giving  our  reasons  for\tdismissal  of  these
\nspecial leave  petitions we  may  state\t that  we  are\there
\nconscious of  the fact that writ petitioner in writ petition
\nNo. 17819\/1994\tout of\twhich the  two\twrit  appeals  arose
\nbefore the  High Court is not before us. But inasmuch as the
\nfresh writ  petitions filed  by the  petitioners who are now
\nbefore us  have\t been  disposed\t of  by\t a  common  judgment
\nalongwith writ\tappeals, it has not become possible to avoid
\nconsideration of  the reasons  given by\t the learned  Single
\nJudge in writ petition No. 17819\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
     The following points arise for consideration:
\n(1)  Was it  permissible for  the State Government to create
\nthe post of Director General of Police, Lok ayukta by way of
\nan administrative  order of  21.12.1992 though the said post
\nwas not included in the relevant rules of recruitment of the
\nstaff of the Lok Ayukta? If permissible, can it be said that
\nthe  said   officer  was   independent\t and   outside\t the
\nadministrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta?
\n(2)  Is the entrustment of functions under the Prevention of
\nCorruption  Act,  1988\tby  the\t Government  to\t the  police
\nofficers  on   deputation  with\t  the  Lok   Ayukta  without
\njurisdiction?\n<\/p>\n
(3)  In what  manner can the provisions of section 17 of the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act,\t1988 and  section 15  of the
\nKarnataka Lok ayukta Act, 1984 be harmonised?
\n(4)  Is further\t investigation in  the present\tcases to  be
\ncontinued by  the police  officers on disputation to the Lok
\nAyukta?\n<\/p>\n
Point 1:-\n<\/p>\n
     At the  outset, it is necessary to refer briefly to the
\nprovisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and of
\nthe Karnataka  State Lok  ayukta Act, 1984 in so far as they
\nare relevant and to certain notifications adverted to by the
\nparties before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 17\t of the\t Prevention of\tCorruption Act, 1988
\nstates that  notwithstanding anything  contained in the Code
\nof Criminal  Procedure 1973  (Act  2  of  1974),  no  police
\nofficer below  the rank (a) in the case of the Delhi Special
\nPolice Establishment,  of an Inspector of Police, (b) in the
\nmetropolitan area  of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad
\nand in\tany other  metropolitan areas notified as such under
\nsub-section (1)\t of Section  8 of  the Code  of the  Code of
\nCriminal Procedure,  1973(Act 2\t of 1924),  of an  Assistant
\nCommissioner of\t Police or  a police  officer of  equivalent
\nrank, shall,  investigate any  offence punishable under that
\nAct without  the order\tof a  metropolitan Magistrate  or  a
\nMagistrate of  the first  class, as the case may be, or make
\nany arrest  without a  warrant. The first proviso to Section
\n17 states  that when  a police\tofficer of  a rank below the
\nrank of\t an Inspector of police can take similar action. The
\nsecond proviso\tstates that  if the  offence  is  one  under
\nclause (e)  of sub-section (1) of section 13 namely, dealing
\nwith possession\t of  assets  disproportionate  to  the\tknow
\nsources of  income of  the  public  servant,  then  such  an
\noffence shall  not be  investigated without  the orders of a
\npolice officer\tnot below  the\trank  of  Superintendent  of
\nPolice.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  next refer  to Section  15 of  the State\t Lok
\nAyukta Act,  1984, which  deals with the mode of recruitment
\nof staff  of the  Lok Ayukta. Section 15 of the Act reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Section 15:  Staff of  Lok Ayukta.
\n     etc.:  (1)\t  There\t shall\tbe  such
\n     officers and  employees as\t may  be
\n     prescribed to assist the Lok Ayukta
\n     and the  Upa Lok  Ayukta or the Upa
\n     Lok  Ayukta  in  the  discharge  of
\n     their functions under this Act.
\n     (2) The  categories recruitment and
\n     conditions\t of   service\tof   the
\n     officers and  employees referred to
\n     in\t  sub-section\t (1)   including
\n     special  conditions   as\tmay   be
\n     necessary for  enabling them to act
\n     without fear  in the  discharge  of
\n     their functions,  shall be\t such as
\n     may be  prescribed in  consultation
\n     with the Lok Ayukta.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  Without   prejudice\tto   the
\n     provisions of  sub-section (1), the
\n     Lok Ayukta\t or an\tUpa  Lok  Ayukta
\n     may, for  the purpose of conducting
\n     investigations   under   this   Act
\n     utilise the services of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\t  any\t  officer     or
\n     investigating agency  of the  State
\n     Government; or
\n\t  (aa)\t  any\t  officer     or
\n     investigating agency of the Central
\n     Government\t   with\t    the\t   prior
\n     concurrence    of\t  the\t Central
\n     Government; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) any other agency.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)   The\t  officers   and   other
\n     employees\treferred   to  in   sub-
\n     section  (1)  shall  be  under  the
\n     administrative   and   disciplinary
\n     control of the Lok Ayukta:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  provided that\t when Lok Ayukta
\n     is\t  unable    to\t discharge   his
\n     functions owing to absence, illness
\n     or any  other cause,  the\tUpa  Lok
\n     Ayukta or\tif there  are more  than
\n     one upa  Lok Ayukta or if there are
\n     more than\tone Upa\t Lok Ayukta, the
\n     senior among them may discharge the
\n     functions of  the Lok  Ayukta under
\n     this sub-section”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It will  be noticed  from the above provisions that the
\nstaff of  the Lok  Ayukta is  to “assist” the Lok ayukta and
\nUpa Lok Ayukta in the discharge of their functions as stated
\nin section  15(1) and  that the staff is to function without
\n“any fear”  in the  discharge of  their duties\tas stated in
\nsection 15(2).\tThe staff  is to be under the administrative
\nand disciplinary jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta as stated in
\nsection 15(4).\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\trule making power conferred on it by section
\n23 of  the Lok\tAyukta Act, 1984, the State of Karnataka has
\nframed rules  for recruitment  of the staff in the Lok Aukta
\ncalled the  Karnataka Lok  Ayukta (Cadres,  Recruitment\t and
\nconditions of  Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules,
\n1988.  Rule   3\t thereof   provides  for  the  strength\t and
\ncomposition of\tthe staff of the Lok Ayukta and states\tthat
\nthe staff  shall be  recruited\tas  detailed  in  the  First
\nSchedule of  the Rules.\t Rule 4\t of the Rules prescribes the
\nmethod\tof   recruitment  and\tthe  minimum  qualifications
\ntherefor. The  first Schedule  divides the  staff into three
\nwings” (i)  Administrative and Enquiry Wing (ii) Police Wing
\nand (iii)  General Wing. The number of posts in each wing is
\nalso specified.\t So far\t as the Police Wing is concerned, it
\nis to comprise of one IGP, one Dy. IG, three Superintendents
\nof Police,  three non-IPS  Superintendents of Police, eleven
\nDy. Superintendents  of Police,\t apart from 24 Inspectors of
\npolice and  an equal  number  of  Sub-Inspectors  of  police
\nbesides\t Head\tConstables  and\t Drivers,  etc.\t The  Second
\nSchedule  to   the  Rules   provides  for   the\t method\t  of
\nrecruitment, according\tto which  so far  as  staff  in\t the
\nPolice Wing  of the  Lok Ayukta\t is concerned,\tit has to be
\nappointed by  deputation from  the  karnataka  State  Police
\nService. The only condition is that the Inspector General of
\nPolice, Deputy\tInspector  General  of\tPolice\t(except\t the
\nSuperintendents of Police) have to be IPS Officers.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall next refer to the relevant notifications which
\nwere referred  to in  the High Court. We have a notification
\ndated 22.12.92\tissued by the State Government under Section
\n17 of  the Prevention  of Corruption  Act, 1988\t (issued  in
\nmodification of\t an earlier  notification  dated  2.11.1992)
\ndesignating all\t Inspectors of Police on deputation with the
\nKarnataka Lok Ayukta to be police  officers for the purposes
\nof section  17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but
\nsubject to the “general and overall control and supervision”
\nof  the\t Director  General,  Bureau  of\t Investigation,\t Lok
\nayukta, Bangalore.  Under the  previous\t notification  dated
\n2.11.1992. the\tsaid control  and supervision  of the police
\nofficers was  vested with the Lok Ayukta. On 21.12.1992, the
\nGovernment of  karnataka created a post of Director General,
\nBureau of  Investigation, Lok  Ayukta, in  the\trank  of  an
\nAdditional Director  General of\t Police and  then issued the
\nnotification dated  22.12.1992 above referred to vesting the
\ncontrol of  the police\tstaff in  the Lok  Ayukta  with\t the
\nGeneral of  Police.  There  is\talso  a\t notification  dated
\n26.5.1986 issued  under section 2(s) of the code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973\t declaring offices  of\tthe  Lok  Ayukta  as
\npolice stations and authorising Inspectors of Police therein
\nto conduct investigations under the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
     The above\tare the\t relevant provisions  of the Central
\nand State Acts, the rules and notifications.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  first deal\t with the  crucial  question  as  to
\nwhether the  Director General of Police in the Office of the
\nLok Ayukta  who is  to supervise  the  work  of\t the  police
\nofficers on  deputation in  the Lok Ayukta is independent of
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta and  is\t out  side  the\t administrative\t and
\ndisciplinary control  of the  Lok Ayukta.  We agree with the
\nDivision Bench\twhen it\t took the view, – differing from the
\nlearned Single\tJudge, –  that though the newly created post
\nof Director  General of\t Police in  the Office\tof  the\t Lok
\nAyukta was  created on 21.12.1992 by an administrative order
\nand the\t relevant recruitment  rules of the staff of the Lok
\nAyukta were  not amended  to bring  the said  post into\t the
\ncadre under  the Lok  Ayukta, still the said post created in
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta, still\tthe said  post created\tin  the\t Lok
\nAyukta police Wing was intended to be and must be treated as
\npart of\t the staff  of Lok  Ayukta in the police wing. It is
\nwell-settled that  administrative orders  even created posts
\ncan be\tissued so  long as  they are  not inconsistent\twith
\nrules, that is to say, as long as there is no prohibition in
\nthe statutory  rules for creation of such posts. The learned
\nsingle Judge’s\tview that the independence of the Lok Ayukta
\nwas under threat was mainly based upon his decision that the
\npost of\t the Director  General\tcreated\t on  21.12.1992\t was
\noutside the  control of\t the Lok  Ayukta. This\tview, in our
\nopinion, is not correct for the reasons mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,\t while\t it  is\t  true\tthat   as  per\t the
\nnotification dated  21.11.1992 issued by the Government, the
\npolice wing in the Lok Ayukta is to be under the general and
\noverall control\t of the\t said Director\tGeneral\t of  police,
\nstill, in  our opinion, the said staff and, for that matter,
\nthe Director  General himself  are under  the administrative
\nand disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta. This result even
\nif it  is not  achieved by  the express\t language of section
\n15(4) is  achieved  by\tthe  very  fact\t that  the  Director
\nGeneral’s post\tis created  in the office of the Lok ayukta.
\nBy creating  the said  post of Director General of Police in
\nthe Office  of the  Lok Ayukta\tand keeping  the police wing
\ntherein under  control and  supervision of the said Director
\nGeneral, the  State of\tKarnataka, in  our opinion,  did not
\nintend to  remove the  police  wing  or\t the  said  Director
\nGeneral\t  from\t  the\tadministrative\t  and\tdisciplinary
\njurisdiction of\t the Lok  Ayukta nor did the State intend to
\ninterfere with the independent functioning of the Lok Ayukta
\nand its\t police\t staff.\t The  modification  of\tthe  earlier
\nnotification  dated   2.11.1992\t  was,\t in   our   opinion,
\nnecessitated on\t account of  the creation of the post of the
\nDirector General  in the  office of  the Lok Ayukta. Nor was
\nthe notification  intended to  divest the  Lok Ayukta of his
\npowers and  to vest  the said  powers only  in the  Director
\nGeneral. For  the aforesaid  reasons, the  Memorandum  dated
\n2.9.1997 issued\t by the Lok Ayukta after the judgment of the
\nlearned Single\tJudge has  become redundant  as held  by the
\nDivision Bench.\t Thus the  main\t argument  relating  to\t the
\nthreat to  the independence of the Lok Ayukta which appealed
\nto the learned Single Judge stands rejected.
\nPoint 2:\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is whether when the State Government
\nhad sent  the police  officers\ton  deputation\tto  the\t Lok
\nAyukta, it  was permissible  for the  Government to  entrust
\nthem  with   additional\t duties\t  under\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act, 1988?\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
\nare one,  as already  stated, in  accepting that  the police
\nofficers of  the State\ton deputation  continue to remain as
\npublic servants\t in the\t service of the State Government, as
\nalong as they are not absorbed in the Lok Ayukta. This legal
\nposition is  absolutely unassailable  because the  State  of
\nKarnataka has  merely lent the services of these officers to
\nthe Lok\t Ayukta and the officers continue to be employees of
\nthe State.  Inspite of\tthe deputation\tof officers with the
\nLok Ayukta  the relationship  of master\t and servant between
\nthe State  of Karnataka\t and these  officers does  not stand
\nterminated (State  of Punjab  vs. Inder\t Singh<\/a> 1997  (6) SCC\n<\/p>\n
372).\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no dispute  that though these officers are on
\ndeputation they\t are otherwise\tof  the\t requisite  rank  as
\ncontemplated by\t section 17  of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 1988  and that  other formalities\tunder that  Act\t are
\nsatisfied for  entrustment of duties under the Prevention of
\ncorruption Act,\t 1988.\tQuestion  is  whether  these  police
\nofficers of  the  State\t can  be  invested  with  powers  of
\ninvestigation  under   section\t17   of\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act,\t 1988 by  the  Stated  under  its  statutory
\npowers traceable to the same section?\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  normally, in respect of officers sent
\non deputation by the State to another authority, the lending
\nauthority should  not, after  deputation  of  its  officers,
\nentrust extra  duties concerning  the said lending authority
\nto such\t officers  without  the\t consent  of  the  borrowing
\nauthority. If,\thowever, such action is taken by the landing
\nauthority by virtue of statutory powers and such a course is
\nnot objected  to by  the borrowing authority, can it be said
\nthat  the   entrustment\t is  without  jurisdiction?  In\t our
\nopinion, from  a jurisdictional angle, the entrustment being
\nunder statutory\t powers of the State traceable to section 17
\nof the\tPrevention of  Corruption Act, 1988 the same can not
\nbe  said  to  be  outside  the\tjurisdiction  of  the  State
\nGovernment. May be, if it is done without consulting the Lok
\nAyukta and  obtaining its consent, it can only be treated as
\nan issue between the State and the Lok Ayukta and is none of
\nthe concern  of those  public servants\tagainst\t whom  these
\npolice\t officers   on\t deputation   are   conducting\t the
\ninvestigation. Such  entrustment  of  duties  has  statutory
\nbacking and  obviously also  the tacit\tapproval of  the Lok
\nAyukta. Once there is such tacit approval of the Lok Ayukta,
\nthe writ petitioners can not have any grievance that the Lok
\nAyukta ought not to have permitted such a course.
\nPoint 3 and 4:\n<\/p>\n
     As stated by the Division Bench, situations might arise
\nwhere the  Government might  like to  entrust such duties to
\nthe police  officers on\t deputation but the Lok Ayukta might
\nfeel that  such entrustment  would  affect  the\t independent
\nworking of  the\t Lok  Ayukta  or  add  unreasonably  to\t the
\nworkload of  the officers on deputation in the office of the
\nLok Ayukta.  The question  is as  to how  to  harmonise\t the
\npowers of  the Government  under the  Central Act and of the
\nLok Ayukta under the State Act. Points 3 and 4 deal with the
\nbalancing of  the respective  powers of the State Government
\nand the Lok Ayukta.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view, if  the State Government wants to entrust
\nsuch extra  work to  the officers on deputation with the Lok
\nAyukta, if can certainly inform the Lok Ayukta of its desire
\nto do  so. If  the Lok\tAyukta agrees  to such\tentrustment,
\nthere will  be no  problem. But\t if for good reasons the Lok
\nAyukta thinks  that such  entrustment of  work by  the State
\nGovernment is  likely to affect its functioning or is likely
\nto affect  its independence,  it can  certainly\t inform\t the
\nState Government  accordingly. In  case the State Government
\ndoes not  accept the  view point  of the Lok Ayukta, then it
\nwill be\t open to the Lok Ayukta, – having regard to the need
\nto preserve  its independence  and effective  functioning to
\ntake action  under section  15(4) {read\t with section 15(2)}
\nand direct  that these\tofficers on deputation in its police
\nwing will not take up any such work entrusted to them by the
\nState Government.  Of course,  it is expected that the State
\nGovernment and the Lok Ayukta will avoid any such unpleasant
\nsituations but\twill  act  reasonably  in  their  respective
\nspheres.\n<\/p>\n
     But once  the Lok\tAyukta has,  as in the present case,
\nnot objected,  – at  the threshold  – to such entrustment of
\nwork by\t the State Government to the officers on deputation,
\nthen it\t will not  normally be reasonable for the Lok Ayukta
\nto object  to said entrustment when these officers are half-
\nway through  the extra\twork. Such  withdrawal\tby  the\t Lok
\nAyukta\tat   a\t   latter   stage   might   create   various
\nadministrative\tproblems  and  will  only  help\t the  public
\nservants against  whom investigation  is being done to raise
\nunnecessary legal issues. Of course, in the present case, it
\nis not\tthe Lok Ayukta which has raised any objection but it
\nis he  public servants\t– against  whom the investigation is
\ngoing on  – who\t have raised  objections. As already stated,
\nthey cannot  raise objections  if the  Lok  Ayukta  has\t not
\nraised any  objections at  the threshold.  The above, in our
\nview, will  take care  of  the\tindependence  and  effective
\nworking of  the Lok  Ayukta and at the same time will enable
\nthe State of Karnataka if need be, to exercise its statutory
\npowers under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  matters before us, as already stated, there has
\nbeen no\t objection by the Lok Ayukta at the initial stage of
\nthe entrustment\t of work under section 17 of the Central Act
\nto these  police officers on deputation. It is therefore not
\npossible to  interdict the  further investigation  by  these
\nofficers at  this  stage  at  the  instance  of\t the  public
\nservants. As stated above, if no objection has come from the
\nLok Ayukta  at\tthe  time  of  initial\tentrustment,  it  is
\ncertainly not  permissible for\tthe public  servants against
\nwhom the  investigation is  being done,\t to raise objection.
\nThe Division  Bench was right in holding that the Memorandum
\ndated 2.9.1997\tissued by the Lok Ayukta is, in fact, purely
\nconsequential to  the judgment\tof the\tlearned Single Judge
\nand in declaring the same to be invalid and also redundant.\n<\/p>\n
     We may,  however, add  that if instead of deputation of
\npolice officers\t from the Government, any other solution can
\nbe found,  that is  a matter  to be decided amicably between
\nthe State  Government and  the Lok Ayukta, – keeping in view
\nthe  independence  of  the  Lok\t Ayukta\t and  its  effective
\nfunctioning as matters of utmost importance.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting  with the  case, we\t may reiterate\twhat
\nthis  Court   state  recently\tin   connection\t  with\t the
\nindependence of\t the Lok  Ayukta in a case arising under the
\ncorresponding statute  from Andhra  Pradesh, in Institute of
\nA.P. Lok  Ayukta etc. vs. t. P asubba Reddy [1997 (9) SCC 42
\n(at page 42):\n<\/p>\n
     “The legislative  intent behind the
\n     enactment is to see that the public
\n     servants covered  by the  sweep  of
\n     the Act  should be\t answerable  for
\n     their  actions   as  such\t to  the
\n     Lokayukta who is to be a Judge or a
\n     retired Chief  Justice of\tthe High
\n     court and\tin appropriate\tcases to
\n     the Upa-Lokayukta who is a District
\n     Judge of  Grade I as recommended by
\n     the  Chief\t  Justice  of  the  High
\n     Court,  so\t  that\tthese  statutory
\n     authorities  can\twork   as   real
\n     ombudsmen\t for\tensuring    that
\n     people’s faith  in the  working  of
\n     these  public   servants\tis   not
\n     shaken. The  statutory  authorities
\n     are meant\tto cater  to the need of
\n     the public\t at large with a view to
\n     seeing that  public  confidence  in
\n     the  working   of\t public\t  bodies
\n     remains\tintact.\t    When    such
\n     authorities   consist    of    high
\n     judicial dignitaries  it  would  be
\n     obvious   that   such   authorities
\n     should be\ta med  with  appropriate
\n     powers and\t sanctions so that their
\n     orders and\t opinions do  not become
\n     mere    paper    directions.    The
\n     decisions\tof  Lokayukta  and  Upa-
\n     Lokayukta,\t  therefore,   must   be
\n     capable of being fully implemented.
\n     These  authorities\t should\t not  be
\n     reduced to\t mere paper  tigers  but
\n     must be armed with proper teeth and
\n     claws so that the efforts put in by
\n     them  are\t not  wasted  and  their
\n     reports  are  not\tshelved\t by  the
\n     disciplinary\t     authorities
\n     concerned.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons, the special leave petitions
\nare dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 Author: M J Rao Bench: K. Venkataswami, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: C. RANGASWAMAIAH & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/07\/1998 BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\"},\"wordCount\":5499,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\",\"name\":\"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998","datePublished":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998"},"wordCount":5499,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998","name":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-18T23:23:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-rangaswamaiah-others-vs-karnataka-lokayukta-others-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Rangaswamaiah & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta & Others on 21 July, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}