Sri Sangappa Roddannavar S/O Shivanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101821 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SANGAPPA RODDANNAVAR S/O. SHIVANAPPA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. ASST. DIRECTOR (I-C), MUDALAGI TALUK PANCHAYATH MUDALGI, BELAGAVI DIST. PREVIOUSLY. PDO, SUNADHOLI AND MUNYAL GP, MUDALAGI BELAGAVI, R/AT. SHIVAPUR, MUDALAGI, BELAGAVI-593 312.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

JAGADISH T R

¶13

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R

¶14

Date: 2023.11.21 10:52:28 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10874/2021. B) QUASH THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 BEARING NO.GRAAPA/23/GRAPANKA/2020 (ANNEXUREA14) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, Belagavi, in Application No.10874/2021 as also the order imposing punishment dated 08.06.2021. The Tribunal has rejected the application of petitioner herein filed seeking to set aside the order imposing punishment dated 08.06.2021, holding that no case was made out for interference in the impugned order.

¶24

The brief facts relevant for the present purpose

¶25

are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Development Officer in the year 2010 and was working in Sunadholi Gram Panchayat during the year 2013-14. During such time, a complaint was made stating that insofar as the amount released by the Government relating to works, there was misappropriation of public funds and false assertions were made regarding completion of work and efforts were made to make unlawful gain. In light of the complaint made before the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶27

Lokayuktha, investigation was taken up and in terms of the investigation report, proceedings were initiated. The investigation report records a finding regarding culpability of the petitioner herein, Geetha Basappa Gangareddy, President of Sunadholi Grama Panchayat and Sri.M.R.Kulkarni, Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub Division, Gokak. Relevant extract of the finding of the investigation report relating to role of the above three persons, which reads as follows:

¶28

� �iv��

¶29

�� ! �� ��"�#$ � � � � � �� %�� &�� '()+�,�)-��)� . � � � �/��0�)1)� � 2�3)�45(4�. � ��56��'()+�� 7�� 8 � � � 2 � � � � � � �� #� � � �� &�� '+)9:�,�)-��)� %�� . � � � �/�;� � <� � +):5��7��v��A��=�<>�� ?�� . � � � �/� �� @�� =$ �� &�� ')A+�,�)-��)� �B�� C�� D=$�� E� �� . � ��/F#$ � � � ��$ � �� $�=)566AGH,�)-��)� � ��$ �� I� 7JK� � �L�$�=)�')A+�M�566A�N$�=)45I455GH��=� � ! �O��P�3� � �L�Q�R � S� � �� L�.��T� �� L$ � � � ! �)��

¶30

�U��7JK� � �L�� $ � . � ��=�� L$ � � � B�$�=)�45I455GH�� =� � ! � V � �� L�W � � � T�L�� @��. � X � � ��$�<YI��Z�3��[$ � �� /�Z�=�\�� . � R�� T��W � �0�])0�])�$�=��Y/^��$]I�. � R�� ]� �1_��ab��a_��c�a� **�** . **�** R�� **�** �]��1_��ab��a_��I�� /�Z�=�\�� . � R�� ]�Q��=�Q�� . � R�� ]��1_��`ab��a_��I�� 3 � �� . � R�� ]�d�Q��=�W � �0�)7$])�� /FKI��Q�� ?�E�� $]I�Ee� � . � R�� ]�?�E�� ]�U.�-fZ��I��=��]�?��$ � �D��f�g$�$�L$ � ��!$�)��

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶33

Pursuant to such report, charges were framed and insofar as petitioner herein and Sri.M.R.Kulkarni who were Government employees, proceedings were initiated. The enquiry was held and culminated in an enquiry report indicting the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Kulkarni the other employee. The order passed upon such report reads as follows:

¶34

“The Disciplinary Authority has proved the charge against the DGO No. 1) Sri Sangappa Shivanappa Roddannavar, Panchayath Development Officer, Sunadholi Grama Panchayath, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum District and DGO No-2 Sri M.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Engineer Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Gokale Taluk, Belgaum District, with regard to excess payment and misappropriation of Rs.14,144/ with regard to concrete work undertaken in the play ground of Government Boys School, Hunakuppi village, Taluka Gokak and they are held responsible for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 14,144/-.

¶35

The rest of the charges are not proved.”

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶38

On the basis of the report, recommendation was

¶39

made by the Karnataka Lokayukta and the relevant recommendation made against the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Kulkarni is as follows:

¶40

7. Having regard to the nature of charge proved against DGO No.1 Sri Sangappa Shivanappa Roddannavar and DGO-2 Sri M.R. Kulkarni;

¶41

(i) it is hereby recommended to the Government for imposing penalty of withholding four annual increments payable to DGO-1 Sri Sangappa Shivanappa Roddannavar, Panchayath Shivanappa Roddannavar, Panchayath Development Officer, Sunadholi Grama Panchayath, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District with cumulative effect and also for recovering sum of Rs.7,072/- from the salary and allowances payable to DGO-1 Sri Sangappa Shivanappa Roddannavar;

¶42

(ii) it is hereby recommended to the Government for imposing penalty of reducing the pay in the time scale of pay by four lower stages with cumulative effect on DGO-2 Sri M.R.. Kulkarni, Assistant Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub Division, Gokak, Belagavi District and also for recovering a sum of Rs.7,072/- from the salary and allowances payable to DGO-2 Sri M.R. Kulkarni.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶44

Thereafter, punishment was imposed on the basis

¶45

of the recommendation in terms of the order at Annexure-A14 and penalty of withholding four annual increments payable with cumulative effect and further direction fro recovery of a sum of Rs.7,072/- from the salary and allowances was made. The validity of such action was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal in Application No.10874/2021 unsuccessfully and the said application came to be rejected. As against such order, the employee has filed the present writ petition.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings against the petitioner, in terms of investigation report of the Lokayukta as three persons were stated to have been guilty i.e., the petitioner herein, Smt.Geetha Basappa Gangareddy, President of Sunadholi Grama Panchayat and Sri.M.R.Kulkarni, Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub Division, Gokak, proceedings as regards

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶48

Smt.Geetha Basappa Gangareddy, President of Sunadholi Grama Panchayat were initiated separately as she was the elected member and not a Government Servant. The said Geetha Basappa Gangareddy had challenged the validity of the proceedings in W.P.No.35733/2018 which came to be disposed off with the following observations:

¶49

(i) Writ petitions are allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) It is ordered that notice dated 29.11.2017 Annexure-T in W.P.No.16093/2018 and notice dated 14.03.2018Annexure-H in W.P.No.35733/2018 shall be treated as notices of enquiry and petitioners shall submit their reply to said notices within a period of three (3) weeks from today and on receipt of such reply, respective Chief Executive Officers of Taluk Panchayat shall hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 157 read with Section 246(8) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act and proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶51

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶52

In terms of the said order, separate proceedings

¶53

were initiated which has culminated in a report holding that there was no misappropriation as alleged.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶55

On the basis of such report, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Lokayukta investigation report holding that all the three were jointly liable and the enquiry report as regards Geetha Basappa Gangareddy holding that no misappropriation has resulted, being made pursuant to the order in the writ petition No.35733/2018, has resulted in a incongruent situation wherein though three were indicted, one of them have been allowed to acquit herself by virtue of the report, while the Government Servants have been held guilty of the charges. Accordingly, it is submitted that, on the principle of parity, petitioner herein also requires to be acquitted of the charges raised and the departmental enquiry report made pursuant to the order in W.P.No.35733/2018 resulting in the elected member being exonerated of the charges requires to be taken note of as regards the petitioner also. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. and Others v. Girish Chandra Sarma [ (2007) 7 SCC 206]; United Bank of India v.

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶57

Biswanth Battacharjee [ (2022) 13 SCC 329] and Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2006) 4 SCC 713] while contending that there has to be parity regarding treating of similarly placed persons and there cannot be any policy of pick and choose allowing one person to suffer and others to go scot-free.

¶58

Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel appearing for Lokayukta would however contend that though

¶59

investigation report of Lokayukta was common, in light of petitioner and M.R.Kulakarni being Government Servants

¶60

there was separate enquiry while Geetha Basappa Gangareddy being an elected member in terms of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, separate enquiry was ordered by this court. The enquiry insofar as the petitioner having attained finality, cannot be disturbed on the mere principle of parity as the order acquitting Geetha Basappa Gangareddy of the charges was under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, while the

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶62

case of the petitioner has reached logical end by virtue of imposition of punishment.

¶63

Heard both sides.

¶64

At the outset, it must be noted that the

¶65

complaint was made by a private person regarding misappropriation of public fund and payment of excess amount of Rs.14,144/- with respect to concrete asphalting work of 2.83 Cubic Meters, which was in excess of the measurement of work done. Insofar as the investigation report of the Lokayukta, it is clear that all the three persons namely Smt.Geetha Basappa Gangareddy, elected representative, the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Kulakarni who are Government employees were held to be jointly responsible for such lapse. As Smt.Geetha Basappa Gangareddy, the elected representative was not a Government servant, an enquiry against her was directed to be made independently under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. The finding in such enquiry in the report submitted by the Chief Executive

¶66

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶67

Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Mudalagi, is to the effect that there was no misappropriation and the finding that there was excess measurement was wrong, nor was there any misappropriation. The relevant findings of the said enquiry report are as follows:

¶68

�� �� � �� 7 �� . � � � ! �� ��"�#$ � � � � � �� %�� . � � � �/�'()*+�,�)-��Q��=��8 � � � 2 � � � � � � �� #� � 7 �� %�� . � � � �/�'+)9:�,�)-��B� �� . � � � �/� �� @�� =$ �� ')A+�,�)-�� C�� D=$�� D��.�T �� . � ��/F#$ � � � ��$ � �� $�=)�566AGH�,�)-��)� � ��$ �� 7JK� � �L�$�=)')A+�M�566A�N�$�=)�45455GH��=� � ! �O�7��P�3� � �L� Q�R � S� � �� L�.��T�� L$ � � � ! �)�0�� $�a��<�g � �� Q��=�W � � � T�L�� @�. � X � � ��$�<Y��Z�3��[$ � �� . � R�� /�Z�=�\�?��$ � �� O� � ��3��Q�$ � 7L$ � ��Oa� �� <� � -��$�h � � � �� 3� � �3� � � � � �� . � W��#��$�a� � �� ��Q�� K��1_�� $�$ � ��=��G� � =� � L�?��$ � ��<� � � � � �� V ��c��e�L� � !)��$ � � � a�� 4'H:5H':'+�$ � � � ��$�a�� #� � gI�� �� . � W��e�L�Q��=��$�a�7�P � � �� � � �� i � �L��=��e�L�@�a$ � � � ��P � � � ��j]�k�l � ]�� )�+*9++G':4A�� �� ��a�� $ � ��<$ � � � Q � \� � � � �� . � R�� Tm�� Kc��e�� Q��=�.W�� � � �� Q�=� �� kX�� $ � �� �� � � � � �� V � P�e � � � �� n��I��1_��`ab� � � �� O� � �� �� ��D��.�T �� $ � � � 7 � �L�� MB �� <� � �� =a#I�� =a#$ � � � � �� � �� V � � Q�/�.��T#$ � ��O� � �� @�a$ � � � ! �)�7��$ � �� ! � �L��8 � . � W�� MB�� "�#� � 7 � �L�� Q�oS� � . �� /� �� 7L� � gI�� <$ � � � � � � � V�� <� � �Q�/� .��T#$ � ��O� � �� @�a$ � ��O� � ��Q�� K��1_�� $�$ � ��=��G� � =� � L� $ � �$ � ��$�am�� Xl � �L� � ! �)� 7� � � � �� 3��Q�$ � 7L$ � ��O��L� ��<$ � � � ��$�a�� ! � �� V ��=$ � �L� � gI� �� O� � ��3��Q�$ � 7� �� ?$ � ��O� � �� K$ � �O� 7� � W#$ � � � � � � � �=e�T�� <�fZ�$�h�� . � P � U��p-� � ��Oa��)��

¶69

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶70

� � ��V�� P � �\�� Q�/�� $�. � ��=�� ?$ � ��O� � �� O� � ��T�� Q�/�� =e�T�� <�� K$ �� V fZ�$�h�� =�� -R�$�h � � � � �� !�� =\� � ��W.Z�$ �� <��)��

¶71

��q�r$ �� =�a��s�

¶72

��q��`<_�� #��s�� i�-P�t#�

¶73

�� K��KQ �� a_�� K��KQ �� a_�� = �� . � R�� =� � L��= �� . � R�� =� � L�

¶74

A perusal of the said report would clearly make out that the allegation of excess measurement of 2.83 cubic meters and payment at the rate of Rs.4998 per

¶75

square meter amounting to Rs.14,144/- was the subject matter of the enquiry which was again the subject matter of departmental enquiry insofar as petitioner is concerned. The finding as extracted above, makes out a case that there was neither excess measurement, nor was any misappropriation and in fact payment was made which was lesser than the actual work done. Once this report is perused, it becomes clear that the very basis of the allegation leading to framing of charges is against the petitioner and finding him guilty has been negatived and

¶76

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶77

the substratum of enquiry no longer exists. It must be noticed that when there are three persons indicted in terms of the Lokayukta report, once the elected member responsible is exonerated, it would not be permissible to hold the other Government Employees who are facing charges jointly as guilty and this incongruity can only be resolved in bringing quietus to the enquiry as regards the petitioner.

¶78

Such conclusion is warranted as the investigation report of the Lokayukta would indicate that the alleged acts committed by all the three have resulted in misappropriation and the role of all three was not sought to be dealt with separately.

¶79

Further, once all the three are sought to be indicted with respect to a single incident of misappropriation and there was no effort made for demarcation of the role of the three persons, the acquittal charges by one ought to enure to the benefit of other two.

¶80

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13071-DB WP No. 101821 of 2023

¶81

It is made out from the records that the report acquitting the elected representative of the charges is of the year 2023, whereas the order of the Tribunal is dated 23.12.2022. The additional facts that is brought on record in the form of enquiry report calls for interference in the departmental proceedings as regards the petitioner herein in the peculiar facts of the case. Accordingly taking note of the subsequent events i.e., the enquiry report, on the principle of parity the order of the Tribunal is set aside as well as the order of punishment dated 08.06.2021 as regards the petitioner herein.

¶82

Pursuant to setting aside of the order of punishment any benefits withheld pursuant to the impugned order of punishment are to be restored to the petitioner.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

Np LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 55

Sri Sangappa Roddannavar S/O Shivanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sangappa Roddannavar S/O Shivanappa 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surekha W/O Ganesh Medar, Vs Ganesh S/O Kalakappa Medar

Shri. Hajimastan S/O Jinnusab Nadaf Vs Smt Farida Begum W/O Hajimastan Nadaf

The Special Officer Vs Dharmaraj S/O Anandappa Doddamani

Smt. Laxmi Venkappa Budihal Vs Sri. Manjunath Kenchappa Magi

Shri. Muttappa S/O. Nagapa Harijan Vs the Under Secretary

Sri Prabhakar S Kulkarni S/O Late Sripad Vs Shri K Anand