Karnataka HC Upholds Quashing Of BBMP Engineer’s Inquiry, Noting Alleged Building Deviation Pre-Dated His Posting

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order entrusting the departmental inquiry under Rule 14A and the resulting charge memo against respondent No. 4.

The court held

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order quashing the inquiry-related order and charge memo remained undisturbed.

01Facts

Respondent No. 4, an Assistant Executive Engineer, assumed charge at BBMP’s Maruthi Seva Nagar Sub-division on 25 January 2016.

¶ 2–5 · pp. 3–6

Following complaints concerning alleged deviations relating to a building, the Lokayukta sought information from him and later initiated a departmental inquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Additional Registrar issued a charge memo alleging dereliction of duty and negligence. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed the officer’s application and quashed the relevant order and charge memo; the Karnataka Lokayukta challenged that decision in this writ petition.

¶ 2–5 · pp. 3–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order entrusting the departmental inquiry under Rule 14A and the resulting charge memo against respondent No. 4.

¶ 2, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the inquiry and charge memo could stand where the alleged building deviations pre-dated respondent No. 4’s assumption of the relevant post and the officers who held it during the intervening period were not proceeded against.

¶ 7–9

03Law Applied

Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 was the provision under which the departmental inquiry was entrusted to the Upalokayukta.

¶ 2, 4

The Court’s decision turned on whether the material and circumstances supported proceeding against this particular officer; it cited no precedent or further statutory rule as the basis for its conclusion.

04Reasoning

The Court noted that respondent No. 4 was not holding the relevant post when the alleged deviations occurred, and the complaint was against another officer, Maradi Rangappa, rather than respondent No. 4. Rangappa had not been issued a notice or called upon to explain, and three officers had held the post after his transfer.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 8–9

The petitioners gave no satisfactory explanation for proceeding only against respondent No. 4, without similarly addressing the responsibility of the other officers. In those circumstances, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that the charge memo lacked merit and found no basis to interfere with its findings.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 8–9