IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.25351/2019 (S-PRO) BETWEEN:
SRI B T MOHAN KRISHNA S/O LATE B J THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 002 RESIDING AT NO.159, 7TH ‘A’ MAIN 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU – 79. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA P R AND SRI J PRASHANTH, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP) VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R.1, SRI K B PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 1.6.2019 (ANNEXURE – A) AND 13.5.2019 (ANNEXURE – B) OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE R.1 AND PROMOTE THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER FROM THE CADRE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PENDING ENQUIRY WITH ALL CONSIQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief:
(A) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure – A) and 13/5/2019 (Annexure – B) of the petitioner addressed to the 1st Respondent and promote the Petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer from the cadre of Executive Engineer pending enquiry with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In support of his prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which was entrusted to the Office of the Lokayuktha pursuant to the complaint dated 14.09.2005 whereas the Lokayuktha commenced enquiry by framing charges on 24.05.2008 pursuant to the Government Order dated 13.03.2008 and further, by delegation of power to the Additional Registrar by the Office of the Lokayuktha dated 05.05.2008. Additional Registrar of Enquiries No.4 has concluded the enquiry and prepared a report on 13.03.2019. Further Enquiring Officer’s report was forwarded to the Government along with the recommendation of the Lokayuktha. Consequently, second show cause notice has been issued on 02.05.2019 and petitioner has obtained interim order on legal issue. Thus, the matter is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted representation to promote him to the post of Superintending Engineer on 01.06.2019 with reference to dates and events relating to Lokayuktha complaint read with conclusion of the enquiry proceedings by the Office of the Lokayuktha. In his representation, he has quoted number of decisions at page no.3 relating to the delay in disciplinary proceedings. Further, he has cited two decisions of the Apex Court viz., STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs CHAMAN LAL GOYAL reported in ((1995)2 SCC 570) and STATE OF A.P. vs N.RADHAKISHAN reported in ((1998)4 SCC 154) wherein Chaman Lal Goyal’s case has been taken into consideration.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that there is delay of concluding enquiry in the office of the Lokayuktha. Reasons for delay has not been appraised by the Office of the Lokayuktha to the Government. So also, delay has not been stated in the report while forwarding recommendation to the Government.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Present case is denial of certain service benefits to the petitioner on account of the enormous delay in concluding Lokayuktha complaint dated 14.09.2005 which has reached the stage of submission of Inquiry report on 13.03.2019. In the meanwhile, petitioner’s juniors were stated to have been marched over to the next higher cadre. Hence, State Government is hereby directed to examine the petitioner’s representation dated 01.06.2019 read with the citations cited at page No.3 viz., P.V.Mahadevan V/s M.D, T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, M.V.Bijalani Vs Union of India and Others reported in (2006 5 SCC 88), State of Madhyapradesh Vs. Bhani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supra) SCC 738 and N.B. Kulkarni Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others reported in ILR 1999 KAR 2677 relating to delay read with state of Andra Pradesh vs. N.Radhakrishnan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible, he be promoted to the next cadre on par with the junior subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
The above exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of eight weeks from today. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Brn