Dismissed

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024WP/141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lokayukta filed writ petitions to quash Karnataka Administrative Tribunal orders terminating disciplinary inquiry against Assistant Engineers. Bench observed Tribunal findings were acceptable as respondents acted timely after short tenure. Writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions to quash Tribunal orders were dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.141 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2022:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

2 . THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SHRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

¶17

¶18

2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

3 . SRI. SRIKANTH S/O KRISHNA A. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER MARUTHISEVANAGARA SUB-DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER MARUTHISEVANAGARA WARD NO.59 BENGALURU-560 033

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.7114/2017 C/W. APPLICATION No.7112/2017 TO 7114/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE - 'A' AND ETC.

¶23

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2022:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

1 . THE UPA LOKAYUKTA-I REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶26

¶27

¶28

2 . THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶29

… PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SHRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶33

2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶34

3 . SRI. ANANDA K. S/O V. KRISHNA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BBMP HALSOOR LAKE) MARUTHISEVANAGARA SUB-DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU PRESENTLY WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD NEAR KRISHNA FLOUR MILL SHESHADRIPURAM ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020

¶35

….RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

10.09.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.7113/2017 C/W. APPLICATION No.7112/2017 TO 7114/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE'A' AND ETC.

¶41

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

CAV JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶44

The substantial prayer in both these writ petitions is to quash the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka

¶45

State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Applications No.7112/2017 to 7114/2017.

¶46

Both these writ petitions arise from the common order of the Tribunal in Applications No.7112/2017 to 7114/2017. By the common order, the Tribunal had considered the applications submitted by employees, who were working as Assistant Engineers in the Department of Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport, who were deputed to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP' for short). The

¶47

¶48

¶49

Government Order dated 22.02.2017, initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicants, the articles of charges framed against the applicants by the third respondent as well as the order of entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta dated 22.02.2017 stood quashed by the Tribunal. The Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar and the Additional Registrar of Enquiries of the Karnataka Lokayukta have challenged the said orders before this Court.

¶50

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing

¶51

for the petitioners that on 04.04.2016, a complaint was given by two residents of Dodda Banaswadi, Bangalore alleging violation of building bye laws and plan by the owner of Site No.85 (Old No.243) Ward No.27 of the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that in spite of repeated written and oral complaints, the officers concerned had not taken any action against the owner of the building. An investigation was conducted under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and a report dated 22.02.2017 was drawn up under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The report was forwarded to the

¶52

¶53

¶54

competent authority, who after detailed verification had passed Annexure-A31 order entrusting the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta to conduct disciplinary inquiry against three officers in terms of Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS (CCA) Rules' for short). Thereafter, the second petitioner, who was entrusted with the inquiry, had issued articles of charges on 10.05.2017, which was produced as Annexure-A4.

¶55

4. It is contended that the order of the Tribunal

¶56

quashing the entrustment order as well as the articles of charges was clearly against the settled position of law that an order of entrustment or charge sheet or show-cause notice is not liable to be challenged or set aside since the employees concerned would be free to raise all contentions in the disciplinary inquiry and the interference was therefore unwarranted.

¶57

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on the following judgments in support of the said contentions:-

¶58

¶59

¶60

1. Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 ;

¶61

2. Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe v. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.104460/2018 and connected matters (D.D. 10.09.2018 ); and

¶62

3. R. V. Jattanna and another v. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.105359/2019 and connected matters (D.D. 30.01.2020).

¶63

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants before the Tribunal, who are arrayed as third respondent in these writ petitions submits that the complaint before the Lokayukta was admittedly submitted on 25.04.2016. It is contended that as a matter of fact, the first complaint was submitted before BBMP only on 24.02.2016. It is the specific contention that on receipt of the complaint, the private respondents had issued a provisional notice to the owner of the building under Section 308 of the KMC Act on 29.02.2016. When no reply was given and construction was continued the private respondents along with other staff went to the spot on 11.03.2016, 16.03.2016 and 26.03.2016 and stopped the construction. Thereafter, the building owner had attempted to continue the construction.

¶64

¶65

¶66

The private respondents again prevented the same on 02.04.2016 and 04.04.2016 and the building owner assaulted them, pursuant to which a police complaint was lodged by them. Thereafter, a provisional order under Section 321 of the KMC Act was issued on 07.04.2016 followed by an order of confirmation on 20.04.2016. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the higher authorities in the BBMP for taking further action in accordance with the provisions of Section 462 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMC Act' for short). While so, notice was issued by the Lokayukta on the complaint submitted before it on 25.04.2016. On 04.05.2016, a caveat was lodged before the City Civil Court by the BBMP. However, a suit was filed by owner of the building and an injunction order against demolition was issued on 31.05.2016. It is therefore contended that there was absolutely no inaction on the part of the party respondents acting in accordance with the complaint since appropriate action was taken without any delay.

¶67

¶68

¶69

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is evident that the complainant had earlier submitted a representation dated 29.05.2015 for initiating action against the owner of the building and had also approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.23768/2015 (LB-BMP), which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the complaint and take necessary action in accordance with law. The said judgment was before the Tribunal at Annexure-A25. It is further contended that though show cause notice was issued by the Lokayukta to the concerned persons, they had not responded to the notice, which led to a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the initiation of proceedings against them.

¶70

In answer to the contentions raised by the

¶71

learned counsel for the petitioner that the party respondents had not taken any action against the owner of the building in spite of being made aware of the violations, it is contended by the private respondents that the third respondent in W.P.No.141/2022 had assumed charge on deputation as

¶72

¶73

¶74

Assistant Engineer in the concerned Division of the BBMP only on 26.11.2015 and the third respondent in W.P.No.174/2022 had taken charge only on 25.01.2016. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of the complaints, they had taken adequate steps and the entire allegations against them were completely unfounded and without justification. It is also contended that the private respondents in these writ petitions had responded to the show cause notice and had placed the facts before the authorities as evidenced by Annexures - A2 and A3 produced before the Tribunal, but their contentions were not considered.

¶75

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act revealed that there was inaction on the part of the party respondents and whether there was such inaction or not is the question of fact which can be revealed only if the disciplinary inquiry are conducted in full as against them. It is further contended that even if it is accepted that the complaint dated 04.04.2016 had been

¶76

¶77

¶78

acted upon, it is clear that after confirmation of the provisional order dated 07.04.2016 on 30.04.2016, the respondents took no further action and it was only on 31.05.2016 that the order of injunction was passed by the Civil Court. It is contended that since the construction was per se illegal and unauthorised, action for demolition should have been taken immediately after the confirmation order was rendered and before the building owner could approach the Civil Court and obtain an order of injunction.

¶79

We have considered the contentions advanced.

¶80

The impugned order had been rendered by the Tribunal after considering the contentions advanced on both sides in detail. It appears that the complaints submitted by Appaiyanna Reddy on 24.02.2016 as well as the complaint dated 04.04.2016 and the records of the proceedings have been examined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disputes between the owners of the properties i.e., the complainants and the owner of the site in question were exclusively civil in nature. It was found that there was substantial litigation pending between Appaiyanna

¶81

¶82

¶83

Reddy and Muniswamy Reddy before the competent Civil Court and also before BBMP. It was therefore held that the complainants could not have approached the Lokayukta until they had exhausted their remedies.

¶84

It was further found that on receipt of the complaints dated 24.02.2016 and 04.04.2016, the applicants had taken action against the construction in question, by issuing notices to the land owner on 29.02.2016 and had also taken necessary steps for halting the unauthorised construction. Further, after the complaint dated 04.04.2016, a provisional notice for demolition was passed on 07.04.2016 calling for objections from the owner of the property. After hearing the owner, the said order was confirmed on 20.04.2016. The private respondents submit that thereafter, appropriate steps had been taken by BBMP in accordance with the provisions of Section 462 of the KMC Act. A caveat had also been lodged on 04.05.2016. However, the developer, who had entered into a joint development agreement with the owner of the property had approached the Civil Court and obtained an order of

¶85

¶86

¶87

injunction on 31.05.2016. The said suit is also being resisted by the complainants.

¶88

The Tribunal also considered the judgments of coequal bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Shivananda B. Magasdum and others by order dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.No.55304 of 2015 (S-KAT) . The decision in S. Narendra Kumar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka in W.P.No.38900 of 2016 (S-KAT) decided on 08.12.2016 and of the Apex Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and

¶89

others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2881 . The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the entrustment made by the Government to the Lokayukta for conduct of an inquiry was illegal since the explanations submitted by the applicants were not considered before such action was taken. It was found that the provisions of Rule 14(2)(a)(iii) of the KCS (CCA) Rules stood violated. Before us also, it is specifically contended that the officers had worked in the BBMP only from 26.11.2015 to 25.01.2016, respectively and that on the complaint being lodged by the

¶90

¶91

¶92

complainants they had, as a matter of fact, taken necessary action against the building in question. Therefore the allegation that they had facilitated the illegal construction was rightly found against by the Tribunal.

¶93

Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. It is clear that though an earlier representation had been submitted by the complainants and this Court by its judgment dated 11.06.2015 in W.P.No.23768/2015 had directed to consider the complaint, the private respondents had assumed charge in the concerned Division as Assistant Engineers only on 26.11.2015 and 25.01.2016, respectively. Thereafter, a complaint was submitted on 24.02.2016, pursuant to which a notice was issued to the land owner on 29.02.2016 and action was taken to prevent further construction.

¶94

Thereafter, further complaint was raised on 04.04.2016, on which action under Section 321 of the KMC Act was initiated on 07.04.2016. The order of confirmation was issued on

¶95

¶96

¶97

20.04.2016. It is the specific contention that appropriate step for taking action under Section 462 of the KMC Act was also initiated by the private respondents. However, on 31.05.2016, an order of injunction appears to have been passed by the Civil Court. The private respondents before this Court had responded to the show-cause notice issued and had placed these contentions before Lokayukta. However, they appear to have been brushed aside without a proper consideration.

¶98

In the above factual circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the initiation of the proceedings as well as the entrustment of inquiry to Lokayukta and the issuance of charge-memo by Lokayukta was not justified, is an acceptable proposition. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petitions fail, the same are accordingly dismissed .

¶99

¶100

¶101

Pending I.As, in W.P.No.174/2022, are hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE