A subsisting status quo order bars disciplinary action for failure to enforce demolition orders.

The petitioner, who was the Executive Engineer at the relevant time and was then serving as a Superintendent Engineer, challenged the State’s order entrusting an inquiry dated 16 March 2016 and the consequential articles of charge issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta on 13 July 2016.

The charges concerned his alleged failure to act on a confirmed order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

The dispute arose from alleged unauthorised construction at a property in Jayanagar.

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had directed the parties, including BBMP, to maintain status quo in an appeal, and that order remained in force when the Lokayukta report, entrustment order and articles of charge were issued.

In an earlier petition, W.P. No. 1679 of 2017, the High Court quashed proceedings against an Assistant Engineer arising from the same facts, holding that the status quo order prevented the Executive Engineer from proceeding under Section 464 of the Act and the Assistant Executive Engineer from taking removal action.

The petitioner relied on that decision; the State supported extending its benefit to him, while the Lokayukta opposed doing so.

Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for failing to act on the Section 321(3) order while the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s status quo order remained in force.

Whether the findings in W.P. No. 1679 of 2017 concerning the same facts and the Executive Engineer’s role entitled the petitioner to have the entrustment order and articles of charge quashed.

Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for a confirmatory order concerning unauthorised building work, while Section 464 concerns the further action required to enforce such an order.

Officers and authorities must comply with subsisting orders of courts and tribunals; where the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has directed the parties to maintain status quo, municipal officers cannot take steps inconsistent with that direction until it is vacated.

The Court also applied the coordinate Bench’s ruling in W.P. No. 1679 of 2017, which addressed the same subject matter and expressly considered the Executive Engineer’s inability to proceed under Section 464 during the status quo order.

The alleged omission was that the petitioner, as Executive Engineer, failed to enforce the Section 321(3) order.

However, the Tribunal’s status quo direction remained operative during the relevant period.

The earlier decision had specifically held that the Executive Engineer could not proceed under Section 464 while that direction was in force.

The Court therefore rejected the contention that the petitioner remained obliged to implement the Section 321(3) order notwithstanding the Tribunal’s direction, and held that the earlier findings directly applied to the petitioner’s alleged role in the same events.

It quashed the State’s order of entrustment dated 16 March 2016 and the consequential articles of charge dated 13 July 2016.