Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 485 (KAR)

S. S. Heralgi v. Upa Lokayukta

2019-02-21

B.V.NAGARATHNA, BELLUNKE A.S.

body2019
JUDGMENT : Bellunkea. S., J. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the report of the Lokayukta and also the orders of the Government of Karnataka dated 24.05.2017 wherein the writ petitioner was directed to face the departmental inquiry. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as a junior engineer on compassionate grounds in Vijayapura Municipality on 20.12.1991. After his promotion as an Assistant Executive Engineer, he was posted to Nippani Municipality and thereafter to Vijayapura Municipality in the year 2004. Presently, the petitioner is working in the office of the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation/North Karnataka Urban Sector Insfrastructure Project Cell. In the year 2012-13 certain works were carried out on the release of State Finance Fund, particularly with regard to asphalting of road of Ward No. 21, Vivek Nagar, East, Vijayapura. The Deputy Commissioner of the district, on 21.11.2012 for execution of the aforesaid work, approved the action plan as per Annexure-A. Tender was called for and allotment of work was done strictly in terms of the Rules governing the implementation of the project with approval of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-B. That, at that relevant time, one Smt. Parimala Chimmalagi, working in the said Municipality, as a junior engineer, was to implement the work of asphalting and the petitioner was required to supervise the same and to check the measurements with regard to the execution of the work. The writ petitioner contends that the said work was commenced on 25.11.2013 and completed on 30.01.2014. Measurement of the road was done and necessary office note sheet and running bills were prepared and copies of the same along with third party report were issued as per Annexures-C, C1 to C18. It is further contended that 4th respondent, a busy body in Vijayapura town, filed a complaint alleging irregularity in carrying out asphalting of road work. On the basis of the said complaint filed by 4th respondent, the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, to the second respondent directing to hold an inquiry. A joint inspection was held. On the basis of the said joint inspection report, the second respondent submitted a report for dropping the proceedings against the junior engineer who had executed the work. A joint inspection was held. On the basis of the said joint inspection report, the second respondent submitted a report for dropping the proceedings against the junior engineer who had executed the work. A copy of the said report is at Annexure-G. On the basis of the very same allegations, respondent No. 2 directed an inquiry against the petitioner herein as per Annexure 'H Accordingly, Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner as per Annexure-J. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order vide Annexure-H and framing of Articles of charge by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-J, the writ petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned Annexures on the following grounds: As per the Joint Inspection report submitted at Annexure-F, the allegation by the complainant was found to be false and incorrect. It was the junior engineer, who was responsible for execution of work. As the petitioner was only a supervisory authority, the inquiry against him should have been dropped. The Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta, without issuing notice or calling for an explanation, had proceeded to find out a new ground and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to hold Departmental Inquiry on the ground that the Administrative Approval, estimation details and measurement books, running account bills, work order, date of commencement and completion of work etc were not submitted. The said documents which were maintained by the petitioner though were produced, were not taken note off. Therefore, the report submitted by the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta is bad in law. That the impugned order passed by the Government is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned Annexures- E, H and J. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 2 and perused the material on record. 4. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, as the petitioner was only a supervising authority, it is the junior engineer, who was responsible for implementing the work and that though the joint inspection report showed that the work done was in accordance with the specifications, Departmental Inquiry should not have been initiated against him. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, as the petitioner was only a supervising authority, it is the junior engineer, who was responsible for implementing the work and that though the joint inspection report showed that the work done was in accordance with the specifications, Departmental Inquiry should not have been initiated against him. It was also submitted that the junior engineer has preferred a petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 103767 of 2018 and on account of the jurisdiction, the matter is transferred to Kalburgi Bench. However, it is not known as to whether the said matter is pending or disposed off. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed statement of objections. They have stated that they are not aware of Annexures-C, C1 and C2. They have denied the contents of para 7 of the memorandum of writ petition. The petitioner has not produced the copies of measurement book in order to verify as to whether or not the work carried was in accordance with the estimate. Likewise, the running account bills etc. are also not produced. Therefore, solely on the basis of the 3r d party technical opinion, it cannot be said held that there was no misappropriation in execution of the work. That the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta has examined the allegations against the petitioner and has submitted a report ordering for disciplinary inquiry. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swaminathan, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 498 and State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Manjit Singh and Ors., reported in (1997) 11 SCC 368 , Union of India & Anr. vs. Kunnishetty Satyanarayana, reported in ( AIR 2007 SC 906 ) and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 and lastly on a Special Leave Petition Nos. 19453-63 of 1995 disposed off on 09.02.1996. 6. The respondents have reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections during their arguments. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. 19453-63 of 1995 disposed off on 09.02.1996. 6. The respondents have reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections during their arguments. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Whenever an allegation is made against a Government Servant with regard to misappropriation of funds or misconduct while discharging his duties, show-cause notice will be issued and explanation will be called for. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted, if prima facie case is made out against a Government servant. Thus, the burden is on the authority, who contends that the work has not been executed in quality and quantity, to prove the same. 8. The petitioner is merely trying to rely upon the joint inspection report. In the Upa-Lokyukta report it was found that the one of the columns in the title sheet of the estimate which contains a column relating to the particulars as to the administrative approval is left blank. To find out whether the work has been executed in accordance with the estimation, the measurement book, running account bills, work order, date of commencement and completion of work are not at all furnished. Therefore, merely on the basis of a third party technical opinion, it cannot be said that the work executed was satisfactory. Hence, the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta recommended for departmental inquiry against the delinquent officer. On considering the same, second respondent passed an order directing to hold an inquiry. Articles of charge have been framed and the inquiry is at the threshold stage, the evidence on facts is required. That could be given only on the parties adducing their evidence in the matter. That is exactly what is to be done in an inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner who claims to have come with clean hands should not shy away from facing the inquiry. This is not a criminal case where the accused could be discharged if no grounds are made out to frame a charge. Therefore, in case of such allegations and denial of the same, departmental inquiry is the only mode which enables either of the parties to prove their case. Mere quashing of orders for inquiry and stalling the inquiry proceedings would jeopardize the process of inquiry. Therefore, in case of such allegations and denial of the same, departmental inquiry is the only mode which enables either of the parties to prove their case. Mere quashing of orders for inquiry and stalling the inquiry proceedings would jeopardize the process of inquiry. Therefore, we are of the view that the validity of the joint inspection report and proving the same would be obtained through an inquiry. Hence, merely on the basis of technical report, petitioner cannot get himself absolved from facing an inquiry. Further, the contention of the petitioner that it is the junior engineer, who was the actual executant of the work and that he was only a supervising officer, would not by itself absolve him from the liability to face an inquiry. Therefore, he cannot rely on the writ petition filed by the junior engineer, as his role has to be independently examined to find out whether he had discharged his duty honestly and efficiently. 9. Hence, for the above said reasons, we find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.