Disciplinary penalty upheld for a Panchayat officer’s failure to verify property title before purchase.

The petitioner, a Panchayat Development Officer, succeeded the officer involved in the process of purchasing a site for the Gram Panchayat.

She signed the sale deed on behalf of the Governor of Karnataka.

The disciplinary proceedings alleged that she failed to verify the vendor’s title, paid consideration for the site, and furnished false information to senior officials.

She maintained that the Panchayat had already resolved to purchase the site before she took charge and that her role was limited to implementing that resolution.

The enquiry officer found the charge proved; acting on the Lokayukta’s recommendation under Rule 14(A)(2)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, the disciplinary authority withheld three annual increments without cumulative effect.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed her application challenging the penalty, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the finding that the petitioner was guilty of negligence in failing to verify the property documents before signing the sale deed warranted interference.

2. Whether withholding three annual increments without cumulative effect was disproportionate to the misconduct and warranted interference.

The Court referred to Rule 14(A)(2)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, under which the Lokayukta made its recommendation in the disciplinary matter.

It applied the principle that an officer responsible for a public transaction must exercise reasonable care and verify relevant records before acting; in a property purchase, this includes verifying title and, as appropriate, obtaining legal opinion.

The Court cited no judicial precedent or additional statutory provision.

The Court considered the petitioner’s contention that the purchase process and Panchayat resolution predated her assumption of charge, but held that her responsibility as the Panchayat Development Officer required her to verify the relevant records before signing the sale deed.

The property was purchased with public funds despite defective title, and the Court concluded that the finding of negligence was supported by the record.

It further held that withholding three increments without cumulative effect was not disproportionate so as to justify judicial interference.

It dismissed the writ petition.