Shri. T. Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

SHRI. T. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE C.THIMMAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (INCHARGE) (RTD) OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K R I D L BAGALKOT R/AT NO.109, SHRI BALAJI LAYOUT, KENCHENAHALLY, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

THE DIRECTOR (RURAL DEVELOPMENT) AND INCHARGE DEPUTY SECRETARY,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶23

UPA LOKAYUKTHA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MS BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶24

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENGUIRIES-3, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MS BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶25

MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ENQUIRY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶26

SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN JOSHI S/O SHRI K.D.JOSHI, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.271, 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 014.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATES FOR R-5; R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOa)ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENQUIRY

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

REPORT DATED 26/07/2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN NO.UPALOK-2/DE/197/2019/ARE 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, ETC.

¶34

IN WP NO. 2239/2023

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

SHRI. UDAY MEGALAMANE N. R. S/O SHRI RUDRESH N M AGED 30 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K R I D L RAMANAGARAM, R/AT NO.707, MARUTHI NIVAS, MARUTHI CIRCLE, NONAVINAKERE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 224.

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶41

THE DIRECTOR (RURAL DEVELOPMENT ) AND INCHARGE DEPUTY SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶42

UPA LOKAYUKTHA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MS BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶43

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENGUIRIES-3, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M S BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶48

MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ENQUIRY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶49

SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN JOSHI S/O SHRI K.D.JOSHI AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.271, 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 014.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATES FOR R-5; R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 26.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-4 IN NoUpalolk-2/DE/197/2019/ARE 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, ETC.

¶53

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶54

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

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

¶60

WP.No.2198/2023 has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the Enquiry Report dated 26.07.2022 submitted by the Additional Registrar, Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayukta, in respect of the alleged misconduct against the petitioner and the recommendation dated 28.07.2022 submitted by respondent No.3-Upa Lokayukta for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and another delinquent government official.

¶61

The petitioner also challenged the final punishment order dated 23.12.2022 passed by respondent No.5, the Managing Director and Enquiry Authority, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, Bangalore.

¶62

The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had got the government funds deposited in his personal account and the petitioner had withdrawn the said amount through self-drawn cheques. In the enquiry

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

report, the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.3 - Upa Lokayukta recommended for imposing penalty on the petitioner and consequently the order of punishment has been passed whereby there is an order to withhold 10% of the retirement benefits of the petitioner who is to retire at the time of imposing the penalty. This court has dealt with the same enquiry report and similar punishment awarded to other delinquent DGO-2, Smt. Lakshmi.S.

¶66

Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 21.08.2025 in WP.No.2160/2023 (GM-KLA), are extracted herein below:

¶67

"10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. P.P.Hegde, submits that the personal accounts were opened as per the circular dated 25.07.2015. He further submitted that no audit objections were raised at any point of time and as per the report, the 11 works, which were entrusted to the petitioner, were carried out to the satisfaction of the authorities. When it was permitted to open the personal account for depositing the funds released

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

for carrying out the work and no audit objection was raised by the Office of the Principal Account General and the works were carried out to the satisfaction of the higher authorities, the impugned punishment order withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and the 10% interest on the deposit made are wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶72

11. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4, as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, have supported the impugned punishment order and submitted that from the report it is evident that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount through self-drawn cheques, which was not permitted. Even if the petitioner and two other delinquent employees were entitled to open the bank account in their name, the Circular did not provide that they should withdraw the amount through self-drawn cheque or through ATM. There is no explanation coming forth from the petitioner or other two delinquent employees regarding withdrawing the amount through self-drawn cheques and through ATM, this itself amounts to misconduct. However, it appears that the petitioner and other two employees have been let off lightly by imposing only minor punishment. Their conduct of withdrawing the

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

various amounts of the Government funds through self-drawn cheques amounts to misappropriation of the Government funds. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of punishment.

¶77

12. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the enquiry report as well as the recommendation of the Lokayuktha and the punishment order.

¶78

13. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel representing the respondents that even if it is accepted that the petitioners were permitted to open the personal account to deposit the Government money for carrying out the work, there is nothing in the Circular which could have permitted them to withdraw the Government money through their self-drawn cheques and by ATM. We therefore find that the petitioners cannot be absolved completely from misconduct of withdrawing the Government money through self-drawn cheques and ATM."

¶79

As the issue is covered against the petitioner, by the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed in WP.No.2160/2023 (GM-KLA) in respect of the same enquiry, we find no ground to take a different view. Therefore, we uphold the

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

punishment inflicted on the petitioner for withholding of 10% of the retirement dues payable to the petitioner, we

¶83

dismiss this writ petition however without cost.

¶84

In WP.No.2239/2023, the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) was proceeded for opening the personal account to deposit the government funds meant for development work and withdrawing the said amount through self-drawn cheques and his personal ATM.

¶85

The Enquiry Officer submitted the report against the petitioner finding the charge of misconduct proved against the petitioner. Vide the recommendation dated 28.07.2022 submitted by respondent No.3-Upa Lokayukta for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and another delinquent government official. The respondent after considering the report of the Lokayukta and

¶86

recommendation made has inflicted the punishment vide order dated 23.12.2022 at Annexure-H whereby, two

¶87

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

annual increments with cumulative effect and 10% penalty

¶90

of interest has been imposed on the petitioner on an amount of Rs.13,70,300/- for the period from 24.09.2012 to 29.02.2016 amounting to Rs.4,68,179/-. The identical

¶91

issue in respect of the same enquiry has been considered by this Court in WP.No.2160/2023 vide the judgment dated 21.08.2025. This Court has set aside the levy of interest on the DGO-2, Smt.Lakshmi.S.

¶92

Since the facts and issue involved in this writ petition is identical to the facts and issue involved in WP.No.2160/2023, we propose to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed in WP.No.2160/2023. In paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, this Court held as under:

¶93

"11. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4, as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, have supported the impugned punishment order and submitted that from the report it is evident that the petitioner had

¶94

11 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

withdrawn the amount through self-drawn cheques, which was not permitted. Even if the petitioner and two other delinquent employees were entitled to open the bank account in their name, the Circular did not provide that they should withdraw the amount through self-drawn cheque or through ATM. There is no explanation coming forth from the petitioner or other two delinquent employees regarding withdrawing the amount through self-drawn cheques and through ATM, this itself amounts to misconduct. However, it appears that the petitioner and other two employees have been let off lightly by imposing only minor punishment. Their conduct of withdrawing the various amounts of the Government funds through self-drawn cheques amounts to misappropriation of the Government funds. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of punishment.

¶98

12. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the enquiry report as well as the recommendation of the Lokayuktha and the punishment order.

¶99

13. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel representing the respondents that even if it is accepted that the petitioners were permitted to open the personal account to deposit the Government money for carrying out the work, there is nothing in the Circular which could have

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

permitted them to withdraw the Government money through their self-drawn cheques and by ATM. We therefore find that the petitioners cannot be absolved completely from misconduct of withdrawing the Government money through self-drawn cheques and ATM.

¶104

14. So far as the question of 10% interest is concerned, the statement of the account has been furnished today for our perusal. We have perused the statement of account in which there has been no interest accrued on the amounts deposited in the personal account of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no basis for imposing 10% interest on the amount of Rs.29,70,000/-. Thus, we uphold the penalty for withholding two increments with cumulative effect, but we set aside the penalty so far as imposing the 10% interest on the amount of Rs.29,70,000/- from 24.09.2012 to 29.02.2016. Thus, we allow this Writ Petition in part.

¶105

15. We therefore, direct to return the amount recovered from the petitioner in compliance with the order passed in the disciplinary proceeding, so far the penalty of 10% interest on the amount of Rs.29,70,000/- for the period from 24.09.2012 to 29.02.2016 is concerned, within a period of six weeks from today."

¶106

13 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:34470-DB WP No. 2198 of 2023 C/W WP No. 2239 of 2023

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Therefore, we uphold the punishment of withholding

¶110

of two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect however, we set aside the penalty of 10% interest imposed on the petitioner on an amount of Rs.13,70,300/for the period from 24.09.2012 to 29.02.2016.

¶111

The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.3-Upa Lokayukta vide Annexure-H shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of six months.

¶112

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶113

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶114

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶115

DHA

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Shri. T. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. T. Narayana Swamy v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telecom Employees Co-Operative Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C. Akshatha

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Sameen Banu

Shristi Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

G Bhaskar Prabhu Vs Karnataka Stae Khadi and Village Industris Board

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha Vs the State of Karnataka