The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri.Kashinath Sankappa Asooti

SRI.KASHINATH SANKAPPA ASOOTI, S/O SANKAPPA ASOOTI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION, SOUNDATTI-591 126, BELGAUM DISTRICT, R/AT HOUSE No.6, IRRIGATION COLONY, RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNATTI-591 126.

¶18

SRI ADRUSHAPPA IRAPPA HUGGI, S/O IRAPPA HUGGI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASST ENGINEER-2, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI-581 110.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI NARAYAN BASAPPA BHAJANTRI, S/O BASAPPA B. H., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, JEWARGI BRANCH CANAL CIRCLE, BHIMARAYANAGUDI, TALUK:SHAHPUR-585 223, YADGIR DISTRICT.

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ DEP.., M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. VIDYAVATHI A., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.9268-70 OF 2016 DATED 26.4.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶31

Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner; Smt. Vidyavathi A., learned counsel for caveatrespondent No.1; Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned counsel for

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶37

This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta, assailing the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Application Nos. 9268–9270 of 2016, whereby the order of entrustment of enquiry has been set aside.

¶38

The brief facts are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are Engineers in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR). Respondent No.1 worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Project Implementation Sub-Division (PI Sub-Division), RDPR, Haveri, from 16.06.2008 to 02.09.2013, and thereafter was transferred and posted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Rural Water Supply SubDivision, Saundatti, Belgaum District. Respondent No.2 has been working as Assistant Engineer, Division-II, PI SubDivision, RDPR, Haveri, since 03.10.2008. Respondent No.3 worked as Executive Engineer in the Project Implementation

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Division, Haveri, from 13.01.2012 to 22.08.2014, and thereafter was promoted as Superintending Engineer.

¶43

3.1 While respondent Nos.1 to 3 were working in the

¶44

Project Implementation Division in Haveri District, one Sri Bhojaraja lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta against Sri L. Gopal Naik, Section Officer, Sri S. Prabhakar, Assistant Executive Engineer, and Sri Srikanth, Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub-Division (PRE SubDivision), Ranebennur, Haveri District, seeking action against them for the alleged wasteful expenditure of ₹2.25 lakhs in respect of repairs to the road from chainage 0.00 to 3.00 Kms from Mukthidham to Hullathi village during the period from 31.01.2013 to 16.02.2013, by making false entries in the Measurement Book, though the work had already been completed.

¶45

3.2 It is the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the Assistant Executive Engineer, PRE Sub-Division, Ranebennur, by letter dated 01.03.2013 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PI Sub-Division, Haveri, handed over the road in question under the “Namma Grama Namma Rasthe

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Yojana”. Thereafter, the PI Sub-Division took up the road work on 05.03.2013 and completed the same by 20.05.2014.

¶50

3.3 It is contended that the complaint was against the

¶51

officials of the PRE Sub-Division and pertained to the period from 31.01.2013 to 16.02.2013. It is further contended that during the said period, the private respondents were neither working in the PRE Sub-Division nor had any jurisdiction over the road in question, as the same was handed over only on 01.03.2013. The Tribunal, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not responsible for the alleged misconduct and, accordingly, set aside the order of entrustment of enquiry.

¶52

Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing

¶53

for the petitioner, submits that the private respondents, while taking possession of the road and commencing the road work, ought to have considered the expenditure already incurred towards repairs of the said road. It is further submitted that the private respondents committed dereliction of duty in not examining the condition of the road and the expenditure, if any, incurred for its repair prior to taking possession. It is

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

submitted that on account of such dereliction on the part of the private respondents, the wasteful expenditure of ₹2.25 lakhs went unnoticed.

¶58

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the order of entrustment was only for the purpose of conducting an enquiry based on prima facie material and that the respondents would have sufficient opportunity to put forth their defense, which would be duly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the challenge to the order of entrustment before the Tribunal was premature. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid aspects, committed an error in setting aside the order of entrustment.

¶59

Smt. Vidyavathi A., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submit that the complaint was directed against three officers working in the PRE Sub-Division, Ranebennur, Haveri District, alleging wasteful expenditure towards repair of a particular road. It is submitted that during the alleged period, the private

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

respondents were neither working in the PRE Sub-Division nor

¶64

had any jurisdiction over the road in question.

¶65

5.1 It is further submitted that there is no allegation of

¶66

dereliction of duty or any other misconduct against these respondents. Hence, it is contended that the order of entrustment was passed without application of mind and that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the same.

¶67

With these submissions, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶68

Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent No.4.

¶69

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for

¶70

the parties and perused the writ papers. It is evident from the record, and the same is undisputed, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were earlier working in the PI Sub-Division, Haveri. The complaint was filed against three officials of the PRE SubDivision, alleging wasteful expenditure of ₹2.25 lakhs towards repair of the road from Mukthidham to Hullathi village during the period from 31.01.2013 to 16.02.2013. Respondent Nos.1

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

to 3 were not working in the PRE Sub-Division during the said period. It is also noted that these respondents had no jurisdiction over the road in question, and it is not the case in the complaint that any wasteful expenditure was incurred by them. The complaint addressed to the petitioner specifically names the officers alleged to be responsible for the wasteful expenditure.

¶74

8.1 Another relevant factual aspect is that the road in question was earlier within the jurisdiction of the PRE SubDivision and, only by letter dated 01.03.2013, the said road was handed over to the PI Sub-Division under the “Namma Grama Namma Rasthe Yojana”. Thereafter, the PI Sub-Division took up the road work on 05.03.2013 and completed the same by 20.05.2014. There is no complaint with regard to the road work carried out during the period from 05.03.2013 to 20.05.2014 by the PI Sub-Division, where respondent Nos.1 to 3 were working.

¶75

The complaint pertains to the alleged wasteful expenditure incurred by the PRE Sub-Division prior to the handing over of the road to the PI Sub-Division. In such

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

circumstances, there is no rationale for conducting an enquiry against the officials of the PI Sub-Division when the repair work was admittedly undertaken by the PRE Sub-Division. Merely because the road was subsequently handed over to the PI SubDivision, there is no prima facie material to indicate any dereliction of duty or illegality on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 of the PI Sub-Division.

¶80

Ordinarily, this Court would be hesitant in interfering with enquiry proceedings at the initial stage, as the order impugned is one of entrustment of enquiry, which marks the commencement of such proceedings. However, where the

¶81

enquiry itself suffers from the absence of any prima facie case against the officials concerned, they need not be subjected to an enquiry unnecessarily. In the absence of any complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and in view of the fact that they were not responsible for the alleged road repair in the complaint, the enquiry initiated against them is wholly unwarranted.

¶82

The Tribunal, upon considering the aforesaid aspects, has concluded that when the complaint pertains to the

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:997-DB WP No. 58151 of 2017

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

alleged wasteful expenditure and false entries in the Measurement Book by the PRE Sub-Division, the same cannot be enquired into against respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were working in the PI Sub-Division, merely because the road was subsequently handed over to the PI Sub-Division and the road work was thereafter carried out by that Division. The petitioner has neither made out any demonstrable ground to find fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal nor established any ground warranting interference by this Court.

¶87