Dismissed

Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/19955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Facing alleged dereliction of duty, the petitioner challenged an order entrusting the Lokayukta with his departmental enquiry. The single-judge Bench dismissed the writ petition without petitioner's appearance, applying precedent that Articles of charge cannot be assailed under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands disposed off with no consequential relief granted to the petitioner.

Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35786 WP No. 19955 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19955 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PRAKASH M. DHARESHWARA SON OF M.S. DHARESHWARA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O JOINT COMMISSIONER, YELAHANKA ZONE BYATARAYANPURA, AMRUTHA HALLI ROAD BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.135, 3^RD MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, VIDHYANYAPURA, BANGALORE-97 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ACHARI MANJULA VITTALA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA by

¶10

MARKONAHALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH TO GOVERNMENT,

¶11

COURT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP) KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

¶12

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-09 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35786 WP No. 19955 of 2024

¶16

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. NAAE 108 MNU 2023 DATED 16.01.2024 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-K) AND ALSO THE CHARGE MEMO BEARING NO.LOK/DE/18/2024/A.R.E-9 DATED 25.04.2024 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L) IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

There is no representation for the petitioner. Even on the

¶23

last date of hearing, there was no appearance for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this writ petition.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an order entrusting

¶25

the enquiry to the Lokayuktha as well as the validity of Articles of charge.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35786 WP No. 19955 of 2024

¶27

The petitioner was accused of not taking steps to prevent unauthorized construction, while he was working as Assistant Engineer, Peenya Industrial Sub-Division between 15.11.2016 and 03.08.2017. The respondent No.2 after receipt of a complaint, investigated it and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 to the State Government that the petitioner had indulged in dereliction in duty and had violated the Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, The respondent No.1 after perusing the records felt that the petitioner and an Assistant Executive Engineer are to be proceeded against departmentally and hence, passed an order dated 16.01.2024, entrusting the conduct of the enquiry to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 framed the Articles of charge alleging that the petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer at Peenya Industrial Sub-Division between 15.11.2016 to 03.08.2017 had failed in his duty to prevent unauthorized construction. Since the entrustment of the enquiry by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 cannot be faulted as the same was based on the satisfaction of respondent No.1, the same cannot be interfered with. Similarly, the petitioner cannot

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:35786 WP No. 19955 of 2024

¶30

assail the correctness of an Articles of charge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

¶31

Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana

¶32

[(2006) 12 SCC 28] .

¶33