IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.47718 OF 2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C.CHAMARAJE GOWDA SON OF CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1279, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, PADUVANA ROAD, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSURU-570023. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE REGISTRAR UPALOKAYUKTHA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRES-10 OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD #6, JALABHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N.ANITHA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 SRI H.N.SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1; QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-S ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an Executive Engineer in the Mysuru City Corporation, Vani Vilas Water Supply and Drainage Division. A complaint was lodged on 22.01.2008 vide Annexure-A and complaint dated 29.05.2008/03.06.2008 to the Hon’ble Lokayukta with regard to the sub-standard road works in J.P. Nagar, Mysuru.
2. Based on the complaint an investigation report was called for from the Technical Wing of the Lokayukta. A detailed report dated 15.01.2009 was submitted opining that the allegation made against the respondents that they have carried out sub-standard road works, is not established. Thereafter yet another complaint was lodged on 22.11.2008 with regard to the very same subject matter. A show-cause notice was issued to the Commissioner, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike and once again a report was called for. The second report was dated 27.08.2012. The report indicated that the three officers including the petitioner were responsible for mis- appropriation. That due to the acts of the petitioner and the two other officers, there has been a financial loss to the Corporation. Thereafter proceedings were sought to be initiated. Subsequently on 15.02.2014 the Lokayukta held that “the work referred in the complaint is of the year 2006 relating to sub-standard work. At this juncture, it may not be possible to ascertain the correctness of the same. No purpose would be served by keeping the complaint. In view of the same, complaint is closed.” Subsequently, proceedings were initiated. The State referred the matter to the Lokayukta to hold a departmental enquiry. A report was submitted. Thereafter the Government passed an order and forwarded the matter to the 4th respondent – Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short ‘the Board’) passed a resolution imposing a punishment to recover a sum of Rs.2,23,500/- from the petitioner in 24 monthly instalments and also imposed a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the basic pay. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel submits that even though various submissions have been made with regard to the enquiry and the material on record, he would restrict his contentions insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned. He contends that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, even if the charge is held to be proved against him.
4. The same is disputed by the respondents’ counsel.
5. However, on hearing learned counsels and on examination of the entire material on record, we are of the view, that the punishment imposed appears to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the appellant. Therefore, it would not be necessary to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It would suffice to alter the punishment imposed on him. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. The punishment imposed stands modified as follows :-
1. Recovery of Rs.2,23,500/- in 24 monthly instalments is sustained.
2. The further punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the basic pay is set aside and the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect shall stand substituted with effect from 8.1.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms