Disposed

Shri Madhusudan H.B v. Ombudsman

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2022WP/41306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging Ombudsman orders directing petitioners to pay amounts alleged to be misappropriated. Relying on a coordinate bench, the court held that Ombudsman findings are merely recommendatory and not mandatory. It directed the State Government to consider the recommendations under the law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of holding that the Ombudsman orders are merely recommendations and the State Government may proceed to take action in accordance with law.

Shri Madhusudan H.B Vs Ombudsman — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.41579 OF 2015 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.41306 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.41579/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SHRI MADHUSUDAN H B LATE BORAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 571422.

¶10

SHRI M SAMPATHKUMAR, S/O.M MADEGOWDA,

¶11

AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.R.E.D. SUB DIVISION, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT. 571422.

¶12

SHRI NAGARAJ MURTHY, S/O.MADHAYYA, AGE:50 YEARS, EX PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, K.K.HALLI, MADDUR,

¶13

MANDYA DISTRICT-571422. ...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT.PREETHI KAREDDY, ADV. FOR

¶15

¶16

SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K, ADV. )

¶17

AND:

¶18

OMBUDSMAN MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA.

¶19

MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶20

OMBUDSMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD STAGE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶21

THE KADUKOTHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADUKOTHANHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶22

MADDUR TALUK PANCHAYATH, MADDUR - 571428, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶23

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT, OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶24

B.P.SWAMY, S/O LATE B C PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KADUKOTHANHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK,

¶25

¶26

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401. …RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV FOR R1, R2 R4 & R5, SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA R, AGA FOR R6, R3 AND R7 SERVED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD30.05.2015 K.O.A.A.40/2014-15 (ANNEXUREC) CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,262/- EACH BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶29

IN W.P.NO.41306/2015:

¶30

BETWEEN :

¶31

SHRI MADHUSUDAN H B, LATE BORAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 571422.

¶32

SHRI M SAMPATHKUMAR, S/O.M MADEGOWDA, AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.R.E.D. SUB DIVISION, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT. 571422.

¶33

SHRI NAGARAJ MURTHY, S/O.MADHAYYA, AGE:50 YEARS, EX PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, K.K.HALLI, MADDUR,

¶34

¶35

MANDYA DISTRICT-571422. ...PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SMT.PREETHI KAREDDY, ADV. FOR SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K, ADV. )

¶37

AND:

¶38

OMBUDSMAN, MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA - 571422.

¶39

MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT - 571422, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶40

OMBUDSMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD STAGE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶41

THE KADUKOTHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADUKOTHANHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571422.

¶42

MADDUR TALUK PANCHAYATH, MADDUR - 571428, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶43

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT, OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SMT.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV FOR R1, R2 R4 & R5, SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA R, AGA FOR R6, R3 SERVED)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING

¶46

¶47

TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD 30.05.2015 (ANNEXURE-C) CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,28,002/- EACH BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶48

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Writ Petition No.41579/2015 is filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the 1st respondent - Ombudsman of Mandya Zilla Panchayath, Mandya vide Annexure - A, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.31,262/- which is the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner and also the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent - Ombudsman - appellate authority.

¶51

Writ Petition No.41306/2015 is filed

¶52

challenging the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the 1st respondent - Ombudsman directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,28,002/-, the amount which is alleged to have been misappropriated by the

¶53

¶54

petitioner and also the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent - Ombudsman - appellate authority confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent.

¶55

Learned counsel for the parties fairly submits

¶56

that the issue, "Whether the order passed by the Ombudsman is recommendatory or not"? was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.20697/2019 disposed of on 23.03.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

¶57

Having gone through the revised instructions on Ombudsman dated 24.05.2013 at Annexure-J and more particularly Clause-13, this Court finds that the Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority are only required to give their findings in a speaking order and directions to the concerned MGNAREGA authority even in the matter of disposal and punitive action against a person. In Clause 14, it is provided that the State Government shall set up a system within the nodal department to monitor the action taken on the findings of the Ombudsman. Therefore, even as per the subsequent guidelines

¶58

¶59

dated 24.05.2013, it is clear that the findings of the Ombudsman and the appellate authority are only recommendations. Ultimately it is the State Government or any other system established by the State Government to take further action pursuant to the recommendation of the Ombudsman, that could proceed to consider the findings of the Ombudsman.

¶60

4. Consequently, these writ petitions are

¶61

disposed of in terms of the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stated supra, while specifically holding that the impugned orders vide Annexure - A in both the petitions are only recommendations. The State Government or any other authority empowered under the MGNAREGA Act, 2005, may proceed to take action in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

brn

Shri Madhusudan H.B v. Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Madhusudan H.B v. Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Khaleed Pasha Vs the Secretary Government

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G Keshava Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Anand G Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Shri Madhusudan H B Vs Ombudsman

R Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka