IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.11376/2018 [S-KAT] BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 …PETITIONER [BY SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE] AND:
1 SRI. SHIVAPPA T. PALLED S/O. THIMMAPPA PALLED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER [RETD.] R/AT NAVANAGAR, BEHIND VENKATESH MANGALA MANTAP BHAVAN, HUNUGUND, DIST: BIJAPUR 2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. CHANDRANATH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP FOR R2] THIS 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 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2328/2017 DTD.13.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER OF ENTRUSTMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The Respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta in Application No.2328/2017 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘KSAT’, for short], has come up with this writ petition, impugning the order of the KSAT dated 13.07.2017 in allowing the application filed by the Respondent No.2 herein.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 herein was working as ‘Panchayat Development Officer’ in Byakod Grama Panchayat who retired from service on 31.01.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that while he was in service, he is said to have committed embezzlement of funds during the year 2010-2014 under MGNREG Scheme an amount of Rs.1,49,03,712/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.8,61,665/- towards land development and another sum of Rs.19,86,035/- towards village connection. However, it is stated that no work has been carried out. Per contra, by creating benami employment card and also fake documents, he is said to have siphoned the aforesaid amount. It is on this basis, an enquiry was ordered and an order was passed on 21.02.2017 entrusting the matter to the petitioner herein for taking action against the Respondent No.1 herein and others.
3. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge before the KSAT on the ground that there is violation of Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal], Rules, 1957.
4. Accepting the same, the KSAT has allowed the application filed by the Respondent No.1 in Application No.2328/2017 and consequently quashed the proceedings which is initiated. As against the order of the KSAT in Application No.2328/2017, the Respondent No.2- Karnataka Lokayukta in the said application, has come up in this writ petition on the ground that the KSAT was not justified in quashing the proceedings in its entirety, without reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to pursue the same after obtaining necessary permission from the State as provided under Rule 214[2][b][i] of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which provides an opportunity to the petitioner herein from taking necessary permission and thereafter to pursue the same. Therefore, the order of the KSAT in allowing the application without reserving such liberty to the petitioner herein, is erroneous.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusing Rule 214[2][b][i] of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is, in fact, an error committed by the KSAT in not reserving such liberty to the petitioner. However, while confirming the order of the KSAT in quashing the proceedings, this Court would further observe that quashing of the order would not take away the right of the petitioner herein, to pursue the same after taking appropriate permission from the competent authority as contemplated under the aforesaid Rule.
With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AN/-