A single bench of the High Court of Karnataka disposed of two writ petitions challenging Ombudsman orders directing petitioners to pay misappropriated funds. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling, the court held the impugned orders were merely recommendations, not final decisions requiring quashing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.41579 OF 2015 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.41306 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
IN W.P.NO.41579/2015:
BETWEEN :
AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.R.E.D. SUB DIVISION, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT. 571422.
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.PREETHI KAREDDY, ADV. FOR
2
SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K, ADV. )
AND:
3
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV FOR R1, R2 R4 & R5, SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA R, AGA FOR R6, R3 AND R7 SERVED)
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.
IN W.P.NO.41306/2015:
BETWEEN :
4
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.PREETHI KAREDDY, ADV. FOR SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K, ADV. )
AND:
(BY SMT.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV FOR R1, R2 R4 & R5, SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA R, AGA FOR R6, R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
5
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.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
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.
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
6
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.
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:
7
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.
4. Consequently, these writ petitions are
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.
Sd/JUDGE
brn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order passed by the Ombudsman is recommendatory in nature.
Whether the High Court can quash the Ombudsman's recommendation directing payment of misappropriated amounts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.20697/2019Followed¶56
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRI MADHUSUDAN H B LATE BORAIAH
SHRI M SAMPATHKUMAR
SHRI NAGARAJ MURTHY
OMBUDSMAN MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA
OMBUDSMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ
KADUKOTHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
