The Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri. K Ramesh

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALTIRU URBAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU 560050

¶23

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) IN KARNATAKA, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD BENGALURU 560001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B. O. ANIL KUMAR AND SRI. VINAYAK S. PANDIT, , ADVOCATES FOR C/R1;

¶26

SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶27

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 APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No. 4491 OF 2024; PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶35

The Bengaluru South Zilla Panchayath [ the erstwhile Ramanagara Zilla Panchayath and Disciplinary Authority ] represented by its Chief Executive Officer is the petitioner, and this petition is filed calling in question the order dated 03.02.2025 in Application No.4491/2024 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal' ].

¶36

The Tribunal, by this impugned order has intervened with the petitioner's order dated

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

19.07.2024 at the first respondent's instance directing the State Government to pay pensionary benefits to the first respondent with interest applicable as per the Government rates. The Tribunal has allowed four months for due compliance. The petitioner, by this order dated 19.07.2024, referring to the concluded proceedings in a series of appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has directed recovery of Rs.10,14,436/- from the first respondent. This amount would be 50% of the amount that the petitioner will have to pay to meet the obligation.

¶40

The reason for the present dispute is the allegation that the first respondent, who was working as the First Division Assistant with the accounts section, was negligent in ensuring that the insurance of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No. KA 42 G 46 was renewed as of the date of the accident [ 31.08.2016 ] and therefore is guilty of misconduct. The vehicle’s

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

policy had expired on 19.12.2015 but was not renewed even on 31.08.2016, notwithstanding the approval granted for renewal on 20.10.2015 [ much before the date of the accident ].

¶44

The Tribunal has interfered with the petitioner's decision to recover the amount from the first respondent essentially because of noncompliance with Rule 11A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, ' the 1957 Rules' ]. These Rules are categorical in stipulating that if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any charge, it must record its reasons for such disagreement and also record its own finding on such charge on whether the evidence on record establishes the charge.

¶45

The Chief Executive Officer is the

¶46

Disciplinary Authority, and this second Show Cause Notice dated 26.11.2021 from this office is short of

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the requirements as aforesaid. The second Show Cause Notice only reads that the Deputy Secretary, Zilla Panchayath, Ramanagara and the Assistant Secretary, Zilla Panchayath, Ramanagara have opined against the Inquiry Report in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the second Show Cause Notice is being issued with opportunity. When it is undisputed that the Inquiry Report was in favour of the first respondent, the Chief Executive Officer must, first, record the reasons for disagreement with the Report and second, record the reasons for sufficiency of the evidence. This Court, in the light of the afore is not persuaded to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

¶50

Mr. M. S. Devaraj, the learned counsel for

¶51

the petitioner makes a valiant effort for interference stating that the first respondent in his reply to the second Show Cause Notice has admitted that the Chief Executive Officer on 20.10.2014 had approved

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the renewal of the Insurance Policy but by oversight and because he was on leave, the policy was not renewed. The learned counsel emphasizes that this response would constitute evidence and justification for sustaining not just the Article of Charges, but also the decision to recover the amount paid in satisfaction of the award.

¶56

However, Mr. B. O. Anil Kumar, the

¶57

learned counsel for the first respondent, while stating that the first respondent was not even served with a copy of the report, submits that the first respondent's specific response to the second Show Cause Notice is that the vehicle was handed over on 11.06.2014 to the Chief Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Magadi and it was the responsibility of the concerned from this Panchayath to renew the policy.

¶58

These rival submissions are also

¶59

considered, and this Court is of the view that these circumstances could have been material and relevant

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41390-DB WP No. 30598 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

only if the second Show Cause Notice was issued in compliance with the requirements of Rule 11A(2) of the 1957 Rules, and because the petitioner has failed to show due compliance, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any perversity or irregularity in the Tribunal interceding on behalf of the first respondent.

¶63

In the light of the afore, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[a] The petition stands disposed of affirming the Tribunal's order, but providing eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to the petitioner for payment of the pensionary benefits as directed by the Tribunal.

¶66