Disposed

Sri Mandoli.S.Manohar S/O. Shankrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2020WP/147873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's rejection of interim relief in a disciplinary reference. The court stayed further proceedings in the reference application pending disposal, noting the Chief Engineer's report corroborated the petitioner's defense.

What did the court decide?

Stay order on further proceedings in the disciplinary reference application (Annexure-A9) pending disposal by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi.

Sri Mandoli.S.Manohar S/O. Shankrappa Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.147873/2020 (S-KAT)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Mandoli S.Manohar S/o.Shankrappa, Age 59 years, Occ: Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering, R/o.: “Ashirwad”, Plot No.15, Yalakishettar Colony, Hukkerikar Nagar, P.B. Road, Dharwad-14.

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

(By Shri Gangadhar J.M., Advocate)

¶12

And:

¶13

The State of Karnataka,

¶14

By is Additional Chief Secretary,

¶15

Department of Public Works, Ports

¶16

and Inland Water Transport (Service-C), Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.

¶17

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad, Dist.: Dharwad-580 001.

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

(By Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, GA for R1; Shri Rajendraswami C.Hosamath, Advocate for R2)

¶20

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue, appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order only in respect of rejection of interim order dated 14.09.2020 in application No.10901/2020, which the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench rejected the interim order (Annexure-M)

¶21

¶22

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, G.Narendar, J., made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶25

The brief facts required for disposal of the petition are as under:

¶26

On 08.01.2007, a complaint came to be filed by one Sri Manpreet Singh and Sri Prakash T. of Bidar District before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging misconduct to the extent that the State Highway from Halabarga to Kamalanagar was not being maintained properly and that they further alleged misuse of funds and inferior quality of whatever little work that has been done. The complaint is lodged against the Executive Engineer, State Highway Authority and PWD, Bidar.

¶27

Based on the complaint, the Lokayukta is said to have conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that the

¶28

¶29

road was not maintained properly and as the petitioner was discharging his duty as Executive Engineer, PWD, at the time of investigation, the Lokayukta deemed it fit to hold him guilty of misconduct.

¶30

Thereafter, the Lokayukta, on receipt of report from the Investigating Officer under Section 12(3) forwarded the same to the first respondent – State and sought for reference of the complaint to itself for enquiry by the Lokayukta under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957. The first respondent on receipt of the requisition, by its order dated 03.08.2016 was pleased to refer the matter to Lokayukta for disciplinary enquiry.

¶31

The enquiry officer by his communication dated 26.11.2016 was pleased to issue Articles of Charges and Statement of imputations and sought for explanation from the petitioner. Though the petitioner

¶32

¶33

sought for certain documents vide his representation dated 20.12.2016, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply.

¶34

In paragraph No.4 of the reply, it was specifically pointed out that he took over charge as Executive Engineer, PWD Division on 7^th June 2006 and prior to taking over charge, he was in-charge of the works related to the road, which were later taken over by the KRDCL and that subsequently, works like pothole filling and repair of the said road was completed on 31.08.2007 and that the DGO had nothing to do with the execution of the work as the same was carried out by KRDCL.

¶35

The same is reiterated in Paragraph No.4(b), wherein it is stated that the quality control in respect of the works done have been certified by third party/consultancy Agency engaged by KRDCL and works have been certified to the satisfaction of the

¶36

¶37

KRDCL authorities. The thrust of his contention and defence is that, he was in no way involved in the matter of laying or maintaining the road and that the roads were formed by the KRDCL, a State owned Corporation.

¶38

That the said reply to the second show cause notice forced the respondent to refer the matter to the Chief Engineer, Gulbarga Circle and the Chief Engineer by his report dated 29.08.2018 at paragraph No.3 has clearly stated that the work has been executed by the KRDCL and the tendered works were got executed through a private contractor. It is also relevant to note that the said State Highway has been handed over to the National Highway Authorities on 29.09.2007 itself and the complaint is dated 08.01.2007. Being aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to act on the report of the Chief Engineer, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi.

¶39

¶40

It is contended by the learned counsel that the tribunal while issuing notice on the application failed to consider the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief as the enquiry is rendered a futility in the light of the assertions and report of the Chief Engineer. That the tribunal without appreciating the said facts omitted to consider the interim relief and hence, the instant petition.

¶41

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to hold their hands till consideration of the application by the tribunal on merits as we are of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner’s reply to the second show cause notice stand corroborated by Annexure-A8 that is, the report of the Chief Engineer. Admittedly, the report of the Chief Engineer has not been disputed or rejected by the respondents. The issue, as to whether maintaining the roads in question, was cast on the petitioner or was with the KRDCL is a matter of record, which

¶42

¶43

should have been verified form the records itself. It is not that the KRDCL is a private entity, it is a State run Corporation and all the works of the Corporation are a matter of records and it cannot be wished away.

¶44

Hence, pending disposal of the application No.10901/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi, we deem it proper to stay the further proceedings in Annexure-A9.

¶45

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

Vnp*

Sri Mandoli.S.Manohar S/O. Shankrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mandoli.S.Manohar S/O. Shankrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bhima @ Bhimashi @ Bhimappa Vs Mr Subhashchandra Krishnlal Zavar

Suresh Vs the Principal Secretary

Srimaata Education Society Vs Tungabhadra Board

Mallikarjun @ Malleshi Vs Shivashantkumar

The Divisional Manager Vs Duruganna @ Y Duruganna

The Divsional Controller Vs Mahadevi Veerabhadra Sangati