Allowed

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022WP/115194/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty order withheld the petitioner's increments and promotion. The Court held that a complaint by a contractor to the Lokayuktha was filed after the six-month limitation period under Section 8(C), rendering the complaint and subsequent termination/penalty order legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned government order dated 04-10-2019 passing the penalty order is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the service benefits deprived under the impugned order.

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 115194 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA BILLAL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNT SUPERINTENDENT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M S HARAVI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESWARAIAH TOWER, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL), HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶18

HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3;

¶21

SRI.N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADV., FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. NA.AA.E/44/DMK/2017 BENGALURU DATED 04-10-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO, NA.AA.E/44/DMK/2017, BENGALURU DATED 04-10-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The 4th respondent entrusted the work in favour of Shashidhar Hallikeri for construction of box drainage work in Udaya Housing Colony of ward No.1 and another box drainage work at Ward No.10 near Gayatri Nagar, Haveri. The work carried by the contractor was held to be satisfactory vide certificate dated 20/1/2010, issued by the 4th respondent. Since the payment was not released for having constructed the work entrusted, the contractor lodged

¶26

¶27

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶28

the complaint with the Lokayuktha under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 (for short the Act). The Lokayktha conducted investigation and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1984 stating that charges against the petitioner are proved. On the basis of the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1984 a recommendation was made by the Lokayuktha with the Government for imposing penalty. The Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Lokayuktha and also after considering the reply to the show cause notice, passed the impugned order of penalty withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect and also withhold the promotion of the petitioner for the period of four years with effect from 4/10/2019 against which the present petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was filed after expiry of six months from the date on which the action complained against the petitioner was known to the complainant and as such the complaint filed by

¶30

¶31

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶32

the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, the initiation of departmental inquiry culminating in passing of the impugned order is one without authority of law.

¶33

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Muncipal Council submit that payment of contract work for which he was legally entitled amounts to misconduct and as such the impugned order passed by the first respondent is strictly in accordance with CCA Rules, 1957.

¶34

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

The charges against the petitioner is that contractor though had completed the work satisfactorily in the year 2009-2010, failed to release the amount to which the contractor was legally entitled for having completed the project and deliberately withheld the payment without there being any valid reasons. The work entrusted was completed in the year 2009-2010, the notice was issued by the

¶36

¶37

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶38

contractor through his counsel to the respondent No.4Municpal council for release of amount due and the cause of action to file a complaint before the Lokayuktha arose when the contractor issued a notice to the 4th respondent on 26/5/2011.

¶39

Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act specifies that the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under the Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action.

¶40

Section 8(C) of the Act Specifies that any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained become known to the complainant. Hence, in the instance case, cause of action to file complaint under Section 8(C) of the Act arises when the contractor got issued a notice through his counsel on 26/5/2011. The compliant was filed on 10/3/2014 i.e. after expiry of six months from the date of cause of action. Hence, the complaint filed by the contractor after expiry of six months from the date of cause of action is

¶41

¶42

WP No. 115194 of 2019

¶43

not maintainable and consequently, the departmental inquiry initiated by the Lokayuktha culminating in passing of the impugned order of dismissal by the respondent No.1 stands vitiated. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) Impugned order dated 4/10/2019 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-N is hereby quashed.

¶47

iii) It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to service benefits which he was deprived under the impugned order.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal 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

M/S Pola Bala Prabha Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Ayub S/O Abdulmajeed Maniyar Vs State of Karnataka

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe Vs the Principal Secretary

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Devendrappa S/O Hanumantappa Vaddarahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, Vs Umesh Falsely Calling Himself as Adopted