An Assistant Executive Engineer challenged the Authority's order placing a suspended senior colleague, whose suspension was revoked, as in-charge Executive Engineer while reverting him. The court held Rule 32 placement was proper and sealed cover procedure inapplicable, dismissing the petition.
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:10238 WP No. 6871 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.6871 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.R.MAHESH S/O K G RAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD MYSURU – 570 005
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
2. SRI.A.NAGESH
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NC: 2024:KHC:10238 WP No. 6871 of 2024
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE 570 005
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SAMPREETH V KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.02.24 (ANNEXURE-N) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
impugned order dated 29.02.2024 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-N in placing respondent No.2 as an in-charge Executive Engineer by invoking Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules, 1958).
The petitioner and respondent No.2 are
admittedly employees of respondent No.1 - Authority and
are working in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. A case was registered against respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 30.05.2023 in Crime No.8/2023. Respondent No.1 – Authority having found prima-facie case against respondent No.2 placed him under suspension vide order dated 12.07.2022. In the meanwhile, vacancy arose in the cadre of Executive Engineer on account of retirement of one Sri.G.Mohan. The petitioner submitted requisite service particulars to respondent No.1 – Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under Rule 32 of the ‘Rules, 1958’ to the cadre of the Executive Engineer on in-charge basis vide order dated 27.09.2023. The order also contemplates that in the event respondent No.2 is acquitted in the criminal case, his case would be considered. The petitioner took charge as Executive Engineer on 30.09.2023.
respondent No.1 – Authority taking cognizance of the
revocation of suspension order vide impugned order has reverted petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and respondent No.2 is now placed under Rule 32 of Rules, 1958 to the cadre of Executive Engineer on in-charge basis.
petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Authority.
inclined to accede to the said argument.
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.1 being a Commissioner is not competent to place respondent No.2 under Rule 32 of the Rules, 1958
in the cadre of Executive Engineer also cannot be acceded to. Petitioner and respondent No.2 have been placed in the cadre of Executive Engineer by the very respondent No.1 – Authority.
also clearly enumerates that respondent No.1 - Authority
on account of vacancy instead of appointing can place an employee to officiate it as in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a ‘charge allowance’ (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68.
suspension of respondent No.2 is revoked by the Authority, the petitioner, who being junior to respondent No.2, has no legal right to hold post of Executive Engineer on in-charge basis and no indulgence can be granted in the present case on hand.
no application where Rule 32 of the Rules, 1958 is invoked. The interim order was granted by taking cognizance of the law relating to Sealed Cover Procedure
to be adopted by the Authority. The Doctrine of Sealed Cover Procedure has no application to the present case on hand. Though interim order was granted by placing reliance on the executive order dated 14.07.1993, which is based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS K.V.JANKIRAMAN1 , the principles or dictum laid down in the judgment cited supra has no application to the present case on hand.
1 (1991) 4 SCC 109
NC: 2024:KHC:10238 WP No. 6871 of 2024
In that view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
3 issues framed by the court
Does revocation of a suspended employee's suspension entitle him to be placed as in-charge Executive Engineer under Rule 32 over a junior?
Is respondent No.1 competent to place an employee in the Executive Engineer cadre under Rule 32?
Does the sealed cover procedure apply when Rule 32 is invoked?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs K.V. JankiramanDistinguished¶10
(1991) 4 SCC 109 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. K.R. Mahesh
The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority
Sri. A. Nagesh
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
