Allowed

Dr. B.R. Harish, K.A.S. (Jr. Gr) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024WP/31492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thahasildar challenged a Lokayukta Section 12(3) misconduct report and Government order entrusting a departmental enquiry over a Tatkal Phodi order and land conversion recommendation. The Court found non-application of mind, noting Phodi work belonged to the Special Thahasildar and the conversion order was withdrawn, and quashed both orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Section 12(3) report dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure-B) and Government Order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure-A) quashed.

Dr. B.R. Harish, K.A.S. (Jr. Gr) Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 31492 OF 2019 (GM-KLA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DR. B.R. HARISH, K.A.S. (JR. GR) PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDING, 5^TH FLOOR DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DPAR (SERVICES-II) KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTA MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶20

SHRI CHIKKADALAPPA K.M. S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO.2, MARUTHI NAGAR, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI ASHWIN S HALADY, ADV. FOR R3 SRI TEJAS N., ADV. FOR R4)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AND 2 DATED 30.5.2019 UNDER SECTION 12[3] OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT 1984 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2017 ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AND 2 TO CONDUCT A DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT UNDER RULE 3[1][I] TO [II] OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICE [CONDUCT] RULES 1957 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the

¶30

Constitution of India questioning the report submitted by

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶32

third respondent under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’) as well as Government Order dated 30.05.2019 entrusting the enquiry to the third respondent under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’).

¶33

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint submitted by one Sri.K.M.Chikkadalappa on 23.04.2016 alleging facilitating sale of sites in internet by mis-utilizing the Inamthi land and also that petitioner in dereliction of duty contrary to Court orders, re-granted the land to one Poojappa in Sy.Nos.4 and 10 of Kammasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, investigation was taken by the third respondent and thereafter report under Section 12(3) of 1984 was submitted to the first respondent, recommending action against the petitioner for failure to maintain absolute devotion to duty and for acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. In pursuance to the said recommendation, first respondent by Government

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶36

Order dated 30.05.2019 entrusted the enquiry to third respondent under Rule 14A of CCA Rules. Questioning both report as well as entrustment of enquiry, petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Prakash T.

¶38

Hebbar for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Bhojegowda T. Koller for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel Sri.Ashwin S. Halady for respondent No.3 and Sri.Tejas.N., learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Prakash T. Hebbar would submit that the report under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act and Government Order dated 30.05.2019 entrusting the enquiry to third respondent under Rule 14A of CCA Rules are the result of total non-application of mind. Further, he submits that allegation against the petitioner is found at paragraph (6) of Annexure-B, report and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that, the petitioner has passed order for Tatkal Phodi dated 18.09.2014 and that

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶41

he has recommended for conversion of land in spite of setting aside the re-grant in M.A.No.9/01 vide order dated 05.02.2008. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner was working as regular Thahasildar of Bengaluru East Taluk and the work of effecting Phodi and maintaining record of rights is assigned to the Special Thahasildar and Tatkal Phodi order as well as recommendation for conversion was made by special Thahasildar. In that regard, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to documents produced along with memo dated 21.10.2024. It is further submitted that conversion order dated 09.10.2014 was cancelled under Annexure-L – O.M. dated 22.02.2016. Further, learned counsel would also submit that the parties have entered into a compromise in respect of re-grant of land and have distributed the land among themselves. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the respondents have failed to examine as to whether the petitioner has committed any misconduct. Third respondent without application of mind, could not have recommended for initiation of disciplinary

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶43

proceedings against the petitioner and first respondent could not have entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, without examining the material on record. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ashwin S.

¶45

Halady for respondent No.3 would submit that though subsequently order of conversion as well as Phodi have been set aside, as on the date of passing the order, the action of the petitioner amounts to misconduct. Further, he submits that it is for the petitioner to prove before the Enquiry Officer his innocence by producing cogent material and going into the merit of the case at this stage would be premature. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that there is total nonapplication of mind by the third respondent as well as first respondent – Government while submitting Section 12(3)

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶49

report as well as while entrusting enquiry under Rule 14A

¶50

of CCA Rules, for the following reasons:

¶51

Admittedly, petitioner was working as

¶52

Thahasildar of Bengaluru East Taluk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the Notification dated 30.01.1996 along with memo dated 21.10.2024 wherein the State Government in Revenue Department in exercise of power under Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘KLR Act’), delegated the Officers specified in Column No.2 the powers enumerated under Column No.3. The same reads as

¶53

follows:

¶54

Sl.No.	Designation of the Officer	Powers conferred
1	2	3
		1. Establishment,
	Tahsildars, Bangalore Urban District,	2. Law and Order Magisterial matters, 3. Election, 4. Matters connected Land Grant,	and with
	(Tahsildars, Bangalore	5. Protection of Gover	nment
1.	North, South, & Anekal (Additional Tahsildars, Bangalore North and South)	land/Eviction of authorized Encroachme Government properties 6. Cases under Karnataka Reforms Act, 1961, 7. Matters connected Inam Abolition (All typ 8. P.D.S. / Food matters,	Un- nt on , Land with es),

¶55

- 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶56

		9. Muzrai subjects, 10. Implementation of all Developmental and other Schemes as assigned by the Government, 11. Public Grievances, 12. Issuance of SC/ST’s Caste Certificate, 13. D.C.F., 14. Natural Calamities, 15. P.T.C.L. Matters, 16. All other Miscellaneous matters.
2.	Special Tahsildars, Bangalore Urban District, (Special Tahsildars, Bangalore North & South and Anekal, and Additional Tahsildar’s, Office North and South Bangalore North and South.	1. Maintenance of Record of Rights, ‘J’ – Slips, Phodi cases and matter under Section – 127, 128 and 129 of the K.L.R. Act, 1964, 2. Sanction of O.A.P., P.H.P., D.W.P., Pension for Freedom Fighters, etc., 3. Irrigation, Forest, P.W.D., land matters, 4. Solvency Certificates, Stamp Refund, V.P.C., matters, 5. Survival Certificates, 6. Miscellaneous, Government Dues Recovery, 7. Secretary to Land Tribunal, 8. Matters under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 9. Matters connected with Land Acquisition including R.H.S., 10. Issue of O.B.C., Caste Certificates, its verification, 11. Issue of Income Certificates/Domicile Certificates.
The Tah	sildars shall be responsible for	over all Taluk administration.

¶57

A reading of the above makes it abundantly

¶58

clear that the Special Thahasildars of Bengaluru Urban District, (Special Thahasildars, Bangalore North & South

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶61

and Anekal, and Additional Tahsildar’s office North and South) are entrusted with the maintenance of record of rights, ‘J’-Slips, Phodi cases and the matters under Section 127, 128 and 129 of the KLR Act.

¶62

In the instant case, admittedly petitioner was

¶63

working as Thahasildar of Bengaluru South Taluk, presently it is called as East Taluk and the allegation against the petitioner is that in spite of setting aside of re-

¶64

grant in favour of Poojappa in M.A.No.9/01 dated 05.02.2008 passed order for Tatkal Phodi dated 18.09.2014 and also that he has recommended for conversion dated 09.10.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced note sheet relating to passing order of Tatkal Phodi along with memo dated 21.10.2024, which indicates that file was put up before the Special Thahasildar for approval of Tatkal Phodi, which the Special Thahasildar has signed on 18.09.2014. Thus, it is clear that for Tatkal Phodi, Special Thahasildar has approved. When the petitioner was working as Thahasildar and not

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶66

as Special Thahasildar, petitioner is not responsible for passing Tatkal Phodi dated 18.09.2014. Further, the Conversion order dated 09.10.2014 is withdrawn under Annexure-L, O.M. dated 22.02.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation made by the petitioner. Moreover, the entire dispute among the complainant and others is ended in compromise on 04.09.2020 in Proceedings No.HOA/CR/12/2015-16 before the Thahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶67

Learned counsel Sri.Ashwin S Halady for respondent No.3 contended that as on the date of passing order, the petitioner had committed misconduct and further contended that it is premature. It is to be noted here itself that we have come to the conclusion that Tatkal Phodi order dated 18.09.2014 is passed by the Special Thahasildar of Bengaluru East Taluk and the conversion order dated 09.10.2014 is withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation of the Thahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk. Therefore, contention of the third

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶69

respondent needs no consideration. Moreover, in terms of Notification dated 30.01.1996 (supra) work of Phodi is entrusted to Special Thahasildar of Taluks mentioned therein.

¶70

The first respondent – Government while

¶71

passing order dated 30.05.2019 to entrust the enquiry under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, ought to have examined the

¶72

entire material on record. It is for the Government to satisfy itself with regard to misconduct and prima facie it has to come to the conclusion for conducting departmental proceedings on examination of Section 12(3) report as well as material appended to it. The first respondent – Government blindly cannot accept the recommendation of the third respondent submitted under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act. Section 12(4) of 1984 Act mandates the Government to examine all the materials submitted along with Section 12(3) report before arriving at a conclusion.

¶73

For the reasons recorded above and in peculiar fact situation, we pass the following:

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:42136-DB WP No. 31492 of 2019

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶78

ii) The report submitted under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act bearing No.Compt/Uplok/BCD/189/2015/DRE-2 dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure-B) as well as Government Order bearing No.¹D¸ÀÄE 79 PÉE« 2017 dated

¶79

30.05.2019 (Annexure-A) are quashed.

¶80

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶81

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶82

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Dr. B.R. Harish, K.A.S. (Jr. Gr) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. B.R. Harish, K.A.S. (Jr. Gr) 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.H.S.Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rukmini v Vs State of Karnataka

B K Kumar Vs the Secretary

Sri. M a Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Kenchegowda Vs the Upa Lokayukta

Mr. Ramaswamy, Vs Mr. H. Honnappa