Holding

The term "action" under Section 2(1) is limited to administrative actions and does not include allegations of amassing wealth, so the Upalokayukta lacks jurisdiction to investigate such allegations under Section 7(2).

Summary

The State of Karnataka appealed against the High Court’s order allowing a writ petition filed by IPS officer Kempaiah, who challenged a preliminary inquiry by the Upalokayukta into allegations of amassing wealth. The Supreme Court examined whether the term "action" in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 includes such wealth‑accumulation allegations, and whether the definition of "allegation" in Section 2(2) broadens the investigative scope under Section 7(2). Applying the rule of ejusdem generis, the Court held that "action" refers only to administrative actions such as decisions, recommendations, findings or similar acts, and does not cover conduct unrelated to administrative functions. Consequently, the Upalokayukta could not investigate the wealth‑amassing allegation under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the word "action" in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 encompasses allegations of amassing wealth by a public servant.
Whether the definition of "allegation" in Section 2(2) expands the scope of investigation under Section 7(2) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984s. 12, s. 14, s. 2(1), s. 2(2), s. 7(1), s. 7(2), s. 8, s. 9(3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(e), s. 13(2)

Subjects

Lokayuktaadministrative actionstatutory interpretationejusdem generispublic servantwealth accumulationKarnatakacriminal law

Judgment

A STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
v.
KEMPAIAH

JULY 27, 1998

B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.]

Criminal Law :

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 : Sections 2(1), 2(2) and 7.
c "Action"-Meaning and scope of-Amassing of wealth by public
servant-Held: Not covered- Expression "Jn any other manner" in S.2 (1)
cannot be so interpreted as to mean actions which have no nexus to any
administrative action-Definition of "allegation" is S.2(2) not relevant for
interpreting the word "action".
D
Interpretation of Statutes :

lnterpretution-Ejusdem Generis-Rule of-Explained

Words and Phrases :"Action" and "in any other manner"
E
"Action" and "in any other manner"-Meaning of-In the context of
S.2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

The respondent was an IPS Officer wor!'ing as deputy Commissioner
of Police. An unsigned letter containing allegations of amassing wealth
F against the respondent was forwarded to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking
necessary action. The Upaokayukta referred the said allegations against the .,,,
respondent to the police wing of the Upalokayukta for preliminary inquiry
under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and commen_ts of
the respondent were called for under Section 9(3) of the Act. The respondent
G filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid
proceeding which was allowed. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Section 7(2) of
the Act the Upalokayukta was competent to investigate into the allegation of
amassing of wealth by the respondent as it would fall within the meaning of
H the word "action" in Section 2(1) of the Act.
910
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KEMPAIAH (QUADRI, J.) 911
Dismissing the appeal, this Court A
HELD: I.I. The definition of the word "action" in Section 2(1) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 indicates that it encompasses administrative
action taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or
'in any other manner', e.g., granting licenses or privileges, awarding contract,
distributing Government land under statutory Rules or otherwise or B
withholding decision on any matter etc. The expression 'in any other manner'
takes it in fold the last-mentioned categories of administrative actions. The
expression 'in any other manner' contains general words, which construed
literally should receive their full and natural meaning but when they follow
specific and particular words of the same genus, it will be presumed that the
legislature has used the general words in a limited sense to convey the C
meaning implied by specific an particular words. This follows from application
of Rule of ejusdem generis. In the definition of "action" the expression 'in
any other manner' follows 'decision' 'recommendation' or 'finding' so it
connotes other categories of administrative action; it cannot be interpreted
to mean actions which have no nexus to any administrative action. D
(915-A-D)
1.2. The definition of 'allegation' in Section 2(2) is couched in very
wide terms but for purposes of Section 7(2) the scope of investigation is
confined to a grievance or allegation made in respect of an action within the
meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. No support can be had from the definition E
of 'allegation'. (915-E)

R v. Edmundson (1959) 28 LJMC 213, referred to.

"Craies on Statute Law" 6th Edn. p. 179, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. F
722-723 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Kamataka High Court
in Crl. P. No.1155of1993.

K.R. Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi for the Appellants. G
Ashok K. Srivastava and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

QUADRI, J. Leave is granted. H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A In these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common
,......
judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July,
1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857of1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155of1993,
only that part of the judgment is assailed, which deals with the interpretation
of 'action' as defined in Section 2( I) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
(for short "the K.L. Act").
B
To appreciate the contentions of Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel
for the appellants, it would be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to
these appeals. On 17.12.92, an unsigned representation containing allegations
~
..
against certain government officers including the respondent, Kempaiah, an
c !PS Officer, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East,
Bangalore, during the relevant period, was forwarded by the Under Secretary
to the Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking necessary
action. The Upalokayukta referred the allegations against the respondent to
the police wing of the Upalokayukta for preliminary inquiry under Section 7(2)
of the K.L. Act. Apropos to the preliminary inquiry the Upalokayukta, by
D letter dated 18.5.93, called for comments of the respondent under Section 9(3)
of the Lokayukta Act. The respondent challenged, inter alia, the validity of
the said letter in the said Writ Petition No. 16857/93) It appear~ that as a
sequel of issuing orders of search by Upalokayukta, FIR was lodged under
Section 13( I)( e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
E (for short "the P.C.Act"); in Criminal Petition No.1155 of 1993, he prayed
before the High Court to quash the proceedings under the P.C.Act. Those two
cases were disposed of by the common judgment by the High Court, referred
to above.

Mr. Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that
F under Section 7(2) of the K.L.Act the Upalokayukta was competent to
investigate into the allegation of amassing of wealth by the respondent as it
would fall within the meaning of the word 'action' in Section 2(1) of that Act
and that narrow construction of that word by the High Court would defeat
the very purpose of the Act. Mr.T.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for the
respondent, submitted that the Preamble of the Act itself would show that the
G
Act was confined to administrative actions take.1 by any public servant,
therefore the allegation of amassing of wealth could not be an administrative
action for purposes of Section 7 and the High Court had rightly interpreted
,:.,
that word.

H The short point that arises for consideration is: What is the true import

•
;
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KEMPAIAH [QUADRI, J.] 913
of the definition of 'action' in Section 2(1) of the K.L. Act? A
A perusal of the provisions of the K.L. Act reveals that the object of
the Act is to ensure fairness in administrative action and for that purpose it
provides for investigation by Lokayukta or Upalokayukta where any complaint
is made against such action by either a grievance or an allegation and for
granting redress/remedy if a complainant is prejudiced by such action and/ B
or initiating departmental proceedings or prosecution against any public
servant in giving effect to the recommendations or findings of the Lokayukta
or Upalokayukta, as the case may be. Section 7 deals with matters which may
be investigated by the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta; Section 8 enumerates
matters which cannot be investigated under the Act; Sections 9 to 11 and C
Rules 2 and 4 of the Kamataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 (for short "the Rules")
prescribe procedure relating to complaints arid investigations. Section 12
requires that report of investigation into the action complained of together
with recommendation of Lokayukta or Upalokayukta be forwarded to the
competent authority who is enjoined to take action thereon and Section 14
contemplates initiation of prosecution by Lokayukta or Upalokayukta where D
he is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence and
should be prosecuted. These are the provisions relevant to the issue under
consideration.

It would be useful to refer to Section 7 of the K.L. Act here:
E
"7(1 ). Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an
Upalokayukta - (I) Subject of the provisions of this Act; the Lokayukta
may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or
specific approval of, -

(i) the Chief Minister: F
(ii) a Minister or a Secretary,

(iii) a member of the State Legislature; or

(iv) any other public servant being a public servant of a class notified
by the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukta in this G
behalf;

in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation
is made in respect of such action.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an Upalokayukta may H
·.

914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific
approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister,
Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant referred
to in sub-section (!), in any case where a complaint involving a
grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such
action can be or could have been, in the opinion ofUpalokayukta, the
B subject of a grievance or an allegation."

A plain reading of this section, makes it evident that sub-section (I) envisages
investigation by the Lokayukta and sub-section (2) by Upalokayukta. Lokayukta
is empowered to investigate any action which is taken by or with the general
C or specific approval of(i) the Chief Minister; (ii) Minister; (iii) Member of the
Legislature; and (iv) any other public servant being a public servant of a class
notified by the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukta in this
behalf. Under sub-section (2) Upalokayukta is enabled to investigate any
action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of any public
servant [other than those enumerated in sub-section (!)]. However,
D Upalokayukta may also, suo motu, investigate an action which in his opinion
can be or could have been the subject-matter of grievance or an allegation.
In other words, the subject-matter of investigation by the Upalokayukta,
whether at the instance of an aggrieved person or suo motu, is an action of
.any public servant which does not fall within the scope of investigation of
Lokayukta under sub-section (!). The words 'action', 'allegation' and
E 'grievance' are defined in sub-sections (1), (2) and (8) of Section 2 respectively.
The word 'complaint' is, however, not defined in the Act or the Rules though ,...
in Rule 2(b) 'complainant' is defined to mean a person who makes a complaint
under Section 9 of the Act.

F The definition of the word 'action' in Section 2(1) reads as under:

"action" means administrative action taken be way of decision,
recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes wilful
failure or omission to act and all other expressions [relating to] such
action shall be co'.lstrued accordingly."
G A perusal of the definition indicates that it encompasses administrative action
taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or 'in any
other manner', e.g., grating licenses or privileges, awarding contract, distributing
Government land under statutory Rules or otherwise or withholding decision
on any matter etc. The expression 'in any other manner' takes it in fold the
H last mentioned categories of administrative actions. Mr. Nagaraja has argued
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KEMPAIAH (QUADRI, .I.] 915

that the expression 'in any other manner' will have to be given a wider A
meaning so as to include other actions of the public servants such as the
action of the respondent in amassing wealth otherwise the very purpose of
the Act will be frustrated. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention
of the learned counsel as it would not only be contrary to the principle of
construction of statutes but will also be repugnant to the object of the Act, B
pointed out above. The expression 'in any other manner' contains general
words which construed literally should receive their full and natural meaning
but when they follow specific and particular words of the same genus, it will
be presumed that the legislature has used the general words in a limited sense
to convey the meaning implied by specific and particular words. This follows
from application of Rule of ejusdem generis. That rule which is an exception C
to the rule of construction that general words should be given their full and
natural meaning, was enunciated by Lord Campbell in R v. Edmundson, (1859)
28 L.J.M.C. 213, " ....... where there are general words following particular and
specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind
as those specified". ["Craies on Statute Law" 6th Edn. p.179]. These rules of
interpretation are so well-settled that they hardly need any authority to D
support our conclusion. Now in the definition of "action" the expression 'in
any other manner' follows 'decision', 'recommendation' or 'finding' so it
connotes other categories of administrative action; it cannot be interpreted
to mean actions which have no nexus to any administrative action.

Our attention was invited to the definition of allegation' in Section 2(2)
E
which is couched in very wide terms but, as notices above, for purposes of
Section 7(2) the scope of investigation is confined to a grievance or allegation
made in respect of an action within the meaning of Section 2( 1) of the Act.
No support can be had from the definition of 'allegation'.
F
Inasmuch as Upalokayukta initiated investigation against the respondent
on the basis of an unsigned letter forwarded by the Under Secretary to the
Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta, the scope of investigations
by the Upalokayukta under Section 7(2) has to be limited to 'action' as
explained above.
G
In this view of the matter, we are in entire agreement with the view
expressed by the High Court. The appeals are devoid of any merit so they
are dismissed.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.