Allowed¶51

Smt. Geetha C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025WP/15220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No.15220 of 2021 (GM-KLA); writ petition Articles 226-227; disciplinary enquiry by Upa-Lokayukta-1; BBMP Assistant Executive Engineer; unauthorised construction; demolition order under Section 321(1) and (2) KMC Act 1976; notice under Sec.308 KMC Act; Rule 3(1)(i)-(iii) KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966; withholding of four increments with cumulative effect; approval of demolition costs by Executive Engineer; dereliction of duty not established; enquiry report, Lokayukta recommendation and punishment order quashed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; enquiry report dated 25-10-2018 (Annexure-J), recommendation letter dated 27-10-2018 (Annexure-K) and order dated 30-4-2019 (Annexure-N) quashed, without costs. ¶51

Smt. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; enquiry report dated 25-10-2018 (Annexure-J), recommendation letter dated 27-10-2018 (Annexure-K) and order dated 30-4-2019 (Annexure-N) quashed, without costs.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., was guilty of dereliction of duty / misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966 in failing to carry out the demolition of unauthorised construction after passing the demolition order, given that approval of the demolition costs by the Executive Engineer was a precondition. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

The petitioner discharged her duty by issuing the show-cause notice to Mr. Chandrashekar, eliciting his response and passing the demolition order; since the demolition could not be carried out in absence of approval of the costs of demolition, she cannot be held guilty of dereliction of duty or of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Approval of the cost of demolition by the higher authorities (Executive Engineer) was a prerequisite for executing the demolition, and there was nothing on record showing that the Executive Engineer approved the costs and the petitioner thereafter failed to carry out the demolition.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (D K Singh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.) allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by an Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., against the Upa-Lokayukta enquiry report dated 25-10-2018, the Karnataka Lokayukta's recommendation dated 27-10-2018 and the State's punishment order dated 30-4-2019 withholding four increments with cumulative effect. The charge alleged failure to execute a demolition order passed under Sections 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 against an unauthorised construction, amounting to misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Court held that the petitioner had issued the notice, granted hearing and passed the demolition order, and that the demolition could not proceed without approval of the demolition costs by the Executive Engineer, of which there was no record; the petitioner therefore could not be held guilty of dereliction of duty or breach of absolute integrity and devotion to duty. All three impugned documents were quashed, without costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.15220 OF 2021 (GM-KLA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GEETHA C. W/O. SRI N. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B.B.M.P. BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI J.M. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B., A.G.A., FOR R-1,

¶19

SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPECIAL COUNSEL, FOR R-2, & SMT. JYOTI PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI AMITH DESHPANDE, FOR R-3)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER BY SETTING THE ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.UPLOK-1/DE/163/2016/ARE-14 DATED 25-10-2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, RECOMMENDATION MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE LETTER BEARING NO.UPLOK-1/DE/163 /2016/ARE-14 DATED 27-10-2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND THE ORDER BEARING NO.NAAE 276 MNU 2016 DATED 30-4-2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The petitioner, who was Assistant Executive Engineer in

¶29

the year 2014 in Maruthiseva Nagar Sub-Division, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru, faced enquiry by the Upa-Lokayukta-1, on a complaint filed by sister of Mr. Chandrashekar, Smt. Susheelamma, W/o. Sri Jayarama Reddy, on 15.7.2014.

¶30

It appears that the parties are involved in number of civil disputes including Original Suit No.8416 of 2012 filed by the complainant against her brother, Mr. Chandrashekar, who was the defendant in the said suit. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mr. Chandrashekar, the defendant, carried out construction on the property, bearing Nos.24 and 4, situate at

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Satyamurthy Road, Lingarajapuram, Kammanahalli. The complainant did not have any interim injunction issued by the competent Court. She made allegation that the construction was carried out by Mr. Chandrashekar, her brother, without the sanctioned building plans by the B.B.M.P.

¶34

The following Charge was framed by the learned Upa-Lokayukta against the petitioner:

¶35

"4. While you the DGO., No.1 by name 1) Smt. Geetha, Assistant Executive Engineer and 2) Sri. Vinay, Asst. Engineer, Maruthi Seva Nagar, Sub-Division, BBMP, Bangalore that a complaint was lodged on 15.7.2014 by one Smt. Susheelamma W/o Jayarama Reddy, No.2/35, VSD Road, Lingarajapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore alleging that, one Mr. Chandrashekar started an illegal construction on the property bearing No.24 and No.4 situated at Sathyamurthy Rd, Lingarajapura, Kammanahalli without obtaining any sanctioned plan, that too during the pendency of O.S. No.8416/2012. But the DGOs have not taken any steps against the said Chandrashekar regarding the illegal construction, except the issuance of notice under Sec.308 of KMC Act and also under Section 321(1) and (2) of KMC Act, but

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

failed to take further action after passing of final order for demolition of the said illegal construction and hence, you the DGO No.1 and 2 have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of Government Servants and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966."

¶39

Thus, the allegation against the petitioner is that after passing the demolition order for unauthorised construction in respect of the building constructed by Mr. Chandrashekar under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, for demolition of the building, the petitioner along with another delinquent officer, Sri Vinay, Assistant Engineer, did not take any further action to carryout demolition of unauthorised construction and therefore, the petitioner, and the other delinquent officer failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and thus, committed an act of unbecoming the Government servants under Section 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Sri J.M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that one Mr. Chandrashekar had carried out an illegal construction on the property, bearing Nos.24 and 4, situate at Satyamurthy Road, Lingarajapuram, Kammanahalli, she issued the notice to Mr. Chandrashekar and after he filed the reply, she granted hearing and passed the order for demolition of the construction carried out by Mr. Chandrashekar. She also submitted a cost of the proposed demolition for approval to the Executive Engineer, however, the said cost for demolition was not approved and therefore, the demolition could not be carried out. The submission is that there is no dereliction of duty and the allegation that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty is wholly unfounded. He, therefore, submits that the Charge, as framed, does not get proved against the petitioner, and the punishment order impugned in this writ petition for withholding four increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect is unsustainable in law.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

On the other hand, Mr. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned Special counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Upa-Lokayukta, submits that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to see that no unauthorised construction is carried out within her jurisdiction. The petitioner allowed the construction to be carried out without there being sanctioned building plan. Despite the order having been passed for demolition, the demolition has not been carried out and therefore, the Charge stands proved on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. There is no error in the impugned order, or the enquiry which requires an interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

¶46

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶47

The only allegation against the petitioner is that despite the order of demolition, the demolition has not been carried out. It is not in dispute that the cost of demolition is to be approved by the higher authorities, i.e. the Executive Engineer. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Executive Engineer has approved the costs of demolition and

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:35805-DB WP No. 15220 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

despite the approval of the costs, the petitioner failed to carryout the demolition order. The petitioner was required to issue show-cause notice for the alleged unauthorised construction to the person i.e. Mr. Chandrashekar, which she did and after eliciting response from Mr. Chandrashekar, she passed the order for demolition of unauthorised construction. However, in absence of the approval of the costs of demolition, the demolition has not been carried out. Hence, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for dereliction of duty, or for not maintaining the absolute integrity and devotion to the duty. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the enquiry report dated 25-10-2018, recommendation made by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27-10-2018, and the order dated 30-4-2019 passed by respondent No.1, however, without costs.

¶52

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶54

KVK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt. Geetha C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geetha C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nandini H Vs Shri.C.P.Sundar Raj

The State of Karnataka Vs the Honble Lokayukta

Gokula Education Foundation ( Medical) Vs Upa Lokayukta -I

M/S Blackrain Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator Attached to the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri Ashok Prakash Vs the Official Liquidator

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Director