Allowed

Sri B Satish Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PWD engineer on short deputation to BBMP was penalised with withholding of four increments over failure to check illegal constructions. The High Court found he had issued provisional and confirmation orders under Section 321 of the 1976 Act and was repatriated before compliance was due, and that the enquiry findings themselves supported him.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the Tribunal's order dated 29.10.2021 and the Disciplinary Authority's penalty order; petitioner absolved from the charge.

Sri B Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI B SATISH KUMAR S/O B R BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NE R SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS

¶16

AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶19

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - 11 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶21

M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.ASHWIN S HALADY ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO 3037/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner, an employee belonging to the PWD Department was on deputation to BBMP for a certain period. On the charge of dereliction of duty namely not undertaking periodical visits to the construction sites and further, not interdicting illegal constructions, he was found guilty in a disciplinary enquiry and has been awarded a punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. His Application No.3037/2019 challenging the penalty order came to be negatived by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶29

29.10.2021. Aggrieved thereby, he is knocking at the doors of Writ Court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the Petitioner was on deputation to BBMP during the period between 03.03.2015 and 24.04.2015; he was holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on in-charge basis presumably under Rule 32 of the KCSR, 1957. One Mr. B R Gopalakrishna had lodged a complaint on 05.04.2014 with the higher-ups about the ongoing illegal constructions; nothing having happened, complaint was carried over to jurisdictional Lokayukta. However, in the meanwhile, Petitioner had taken all corrective steps by issuing notice, Provisional Order u/s 321(1) followed by Confirmation Order u/s 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Lastly, he contends that within one week, the owner of structure was to send hisreply/compliance of the Confirmation Order and very next day following the week, his client has been repatriated. All these aspects having not been duly

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶32

considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the same having been lost sight of at the hands of Tribunal, there is error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the Tribunal’s order as also the penalty order need to be voided.

¶33

Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned Panel Advocates appearing for the Lokayukta and the BBMP oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the findings of the Tribunal and also the penalty order passed afresh after the matter was remanded by the KAT. They contend that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being too restrictive, a deeper examination of the matter cannot be undertaken by the Court. They also repel petitioner’s contention as to penalty being unjustifiably higher levied; even otherwise, what punishment needs to be awarded on the proven misconduct ordinarily lies in the domain of employer and a Writ Court may not interfere. The Disciplinary Authority

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶35

having considered Petitioner’s reply to the Enquiry Report has accepted the findings of guilt and therefore, has rightly awarded the subject punishment. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant limited indulgence in the matter as under and absolve the Petitioner from the charge absolutely, for the following reasons:

¶37

(a) There cannot be much dispute as to the limited supervisory jurisdiction which this court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, what is challenged being an order of a Statutory Service Law Tribunal. As to findings of guilt recorded in a duly constituted enquiry, much grievance cannot be made out, as rightly contended by learned advocates appearing for the respondents. However, even going by the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, there is absolutely no basis for holding the Petitioner

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶39

guilty. We say this because admittedly, Petitioner was on deputation to BBMP from 3.3.2015 and repatriated to the parent department on 24.4.2015; thus, the deputation period was only fifty days. The complaint to the higher-ups was lodged on 5.4.2014 i.e., much before he had gained entry to the BBMP service. The subsequent complaint to the Lokayukta was lodged on 16.3.2015 and at no point of time, a copy thereof was served on him going by the evidentiary material on record.

¶40

(b) Petitioner despite holding In-charge

¶41

arrangement of the post in question, had caused Provisional Order u/s 321(1) of the 1976 Act on 08.04.2015. This was followed by the Confirmation Order issued u/s 321(3) on 16.04.2015. Consistent with a catena of decisions of this Court, the erring owner of the building had one week breather to report compliance of the Confirmation order. That one week expired on 23.4.2015, is not disputed. Very next day i.e., on 24.4.2015, Petitioner was repatriated to his parent department. That

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶43

being the position, how he could have been found guilty remains a mystery wrapped in enigma.

¶44

(c) The vehement submission of learned AGA and the learned Lokayukta Panel Counsel that the Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to mar the finding of enquiry is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as, the findings of the Report are not being upset by this Court; on the contrary, the case of the Petitioner is structured on the findings of the very Enquiry Officer; a Writ Court cannot deny the relief to an aggrieved citizen just by quoting some jurisprudential theories. This court is not reappreciating the evidence at all. It is only upsetting the finding of Enquiry Officer as affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority as to Petitioner being held guilty of charges, when admittedly, the very findings in the Enquiry Report support his version. In this aspect, the Disciplinary Authority having been misdirected, there is an eminent case for the invalidation of Punishment Order. We are amazed to see that the Tribunal had failed to consider this

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶46

angle of the matter despite urgement, as is reflected in the pleadings of the parties.

¶47

(d) It hardly needs to be stated that the scrupulous public servants like the Petitioner need to be protected against unscrupulous allegations and unverified assumptions. That is the reason that Lord Macaulay the Chairman of First Law Commission had suggested for enacting Sections 196 & 197 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the protection of honest officials even when they may err despite bonafide in the discharge of their duties. There is absolutely no material to hold the Petitioner guilty when he has done all that he was expected to. Within one day, it was humanly impossible for anyone to demolish the unauthorized structures, that too without necessary force & implements made available to him.

¶48

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned order of the

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:6313-DB WP No. 289 of 2022

¶50

¶51

Disciplinary Authority as well. Petitioner emerges

¶52

victorious in the legal battle and comes out scathe-free.

¶53

Costs very reluctantly made easy.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

BSV/CBC

Sri B Satish Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Satish Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Razin K I M Vs the Secretary

Sri.K.C.Ashwath Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S C Kodandaramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Govindaraju K R Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

B R Swamy Vs State of Karnataka