2024:KHC:11869 WP No. 49704 of 2019 IN THE…
Impugned order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure-N) imposing withholding of four increments quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:11869 WP No. 49704 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49704 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANJANEYALU B R S/O LATE B K RAMACHANDRA AGED 44 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE PROJECT BYATARAYANAPURA DIVISION YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAY V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C JAGADISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:11869 WP No. 49704 of 2019
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH,AGA FOR R1 & R3 SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER No.Na A E 123 MNU 2017 BANGAORE DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNXEXURE-N, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
penalty of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect.
The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in 3rd respondent-
Directorate of Municipal Administration and was deputed to respondent No.2-BBMP. One Smt. Usha appears to
have given a representation to Lokayukta alleging that the present petitioner and the Assistant Executive
Engineer(AEE) inspite of compliant are found to have committed dereliction of duty and have not taken appropriate action against the adjoining owner who is constructing the residential house in contravention of the interim order granted by the civil Court.
AEE proceeded to answer the charges framed against the petitioner and the AEE. The enquiry Officer referring to the materials on record held that petitioner and the AEE are guilty of not taking action to remove the encroached portion of the building bearing No.14, 6th Cross, Ganganagar, Bengaluru. Consequently, a report was submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta
Act, 1984 (for short “K.L. Act”) to Respondent No.1. On receipt of the said report, respondent No.1 has inflicted the impugned penalty on petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned penalty, the petitioner who is the Junior Engineer is before this Court.
24.12.2012.
the hands of this Court is as to whether penalty could have been inflicted on the petitioner, who is admittedly a junior engineer, when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner.
who is found to be only a Junior Engineer. Unless the Junior Engineer has the power to proceed further after
NC: 2024:KHC:11869 WP No. 49704 of 2019
confirmation of the provisional order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of dereliction of duty for not taking any action. Post confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, it is the Executive Engineer who will pass a precipitative order under Section 462 of the KMC Act. The further course of action as contemplated under Section 462 of the KMC Act admittedly does not fall within the domain of the petitioner who happens to be a Junior Engineer.
paragraph (3) of the report under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act, which reads as under:
“You DGO No.1-M.S. Biradar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Hebbal Sub-division, BBMP, Bengaluru, DGO No.2B.R. Anjaneyalu, Junior Engineer, Ward No.20, BBMP, Bengaluru found guilty of following misconduct;
An order u/s 321(1) of KMC Act, 1976 is passed on 3.12.2012 showing deviations against the sanction plan and the same has been confirmed by passing order U/s 321(3) of KMC Act on 24.12.2012. Thereafter, no action is shown to be taken to remove the deviated portion of the building by you DGOs 1 & 2 in site No.14, 6th Cross, Vasanthappa Block, Ganganagar, Bengaluru. Therefore, you DGOs no.1 and 2 are prima facie found guilty of misconduct.
Thereby you DGOs 1 & 2, being Government/public servants have failed to maintain absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servants and thus committed misconduct as enumerated U/R 3(1) (i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966”.
9. Respondent No.1 in all probability has aligned
its view with the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer under Section 12(3) of the K.L. Act and without independently applying its mind and without ascertaining as to whether petitioner as a Junior Engineer had any role to play to implement the order passed under Section 321(3) of KMC Act, has proceeded to inflict penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect, which is found to be bad in law and in absence of material on record.
BBMP, on a query, has made a submission to this Court that it is the Executive Engineer who is authorized to execute confirmation order under Section 462 of the KMC Act, pursuant to the order passed under Section 321(3) of KMC Act. If these significant details are looked into, the impugned penalty is not sustainable.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 6.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-“N’ insofar as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a penalty of withholding four annual increments could be imposed on a Junior Engineer when no specific allegations were made against him and the post-confirmation demolition action fell outsid
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Anjaneyalu B R
The State of Karnataka
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)
The Directorate of Municipal Administration
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
