Karnataka High Court

Mr. Manjunatha Kappali vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

       WRIT PETITION NO.7879 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

MR. MANJUNATHA KAPPALI,
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA KAPPALI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PANCHYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION,
HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE,
RESIDING AT NO.172, SUVARNA DEVARAJ
URS LAYOUT, 'A' BLOCK, 10TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
     AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
     MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT)

2.   THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
     MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR)
 -

                            2




3.   THE UPA LOKAYUKTA
     MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR)

4.   THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
     ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRY-4,
     KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
     MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2022 PASSED
BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION
NUMBER 1394/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; b) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.12.2018 BEARING NO.RDPR 60 ENQ 2018, BENGALURU
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A13; AND c)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 29.04.2022 BEARING
REF NO.PWD 08 SERANI 2022, ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND
CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         and
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
 -

                                    3




                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ petition is filed against the order dated

25.05.2022 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)

in Application No.1394/2019, dismissing the application

preferred by the petitioner challenging Annexure - A13

dated 22.12.2018 passed by the first respondent directing to

reduce the scale of pay of the petitioner by four stages with

cumulative effect.

2. The relevant facts are stated as follows:-

During 2009-2010, while the petitioner was

working as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering

Division at Davanagere, Official Memorandums dated

29.11.2009 and 14.12.2009, were passed by the Chief

Executive Officer, District Panchayat, under the BRGF

Scheme 2009-2010, for a grant of Rs.4,90,000/- and

Rs.10,00,000/-, respectively was sanctioned and re-

approved for construction of additional rooms in the

Government Post Metric Vocational Boys Hostel,

Davanagere. Later, the Executive Engineer accorded

technical approval for construction of two additional rooms.

Thereafter, on 30.08.2013, a complaint was lodged by Mr.

L.O. Manjunath against the petitioner and one Sri. S.K.

Shivakumar alleging misuse of government funds. With

regard to this, the Executive Officer has issued a detailed

clarification. Based on the complaint filed against the

petitioner, the third Respondent issued endorsement on

07.01.2014, directing the petitioner to submit his objections

to the complaint. The petitioner filed his objections on

24.01.2014.

3. Further, on 03.07.2014, the Executive Officer,

Taluk Panchayat, sought a detailed report from Mr. G.

Basavarajappa, the then Extension Officer of Backward

Classes, requiring clarification whether he has tendered the

construction of two additional rooms, to which he issued a

reply letter on 11.07.2014. In turn, the Executive Officer

sent another clarification letter to the third Respondent. On

13.08.2014, the petitioner filed an additional reply

requesting to drop the proceedings initiated against him with

supporting documents. As per Rule 11 of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS CCA Rules, 1957' for

short), the first respondent on 09.04.2015 initiated the

disciplinary proceedings and entrusted the matter to the

third respondent to conduct enquiry as per Rule 14A of the

KCS CCA Rules, 1957. In turn, the third respondent

nominated the fifth Respondent to conduct an inquiry

against the petitioner. On 13.05.2015, the articles of charge

were framed against the petitioner, to which the petitioner

also submitted his reply on 29.02.2016. The fifth

respondent submitted an enquiry report on 28.06.2018

holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be

'proved'.

4. Thereafter, the third respondent submitted a

recommendation dated 05.07.2018 for imposing a major

penalty of 'reducing the pay scale of the Petitioner by four

stages with cumulative effect'. Based on the said

recommendation, the first respondent issued a second show

cause notice on 25.07.2018 against the petitioner. Later, the

first respondent passed an Impugned Order on 22.12.2018

directing to reduce the scale of pay of the petitioner by four

stages with cumulative effect.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the

Application No.1394/2019 before the Tribunal. Upon hearing

the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the

petitioner, upheld the impugned order of the first

respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has

preferred the present writ petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the

Lokayukta as well as the learned Additional Government

advocate appearing for the official respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the charge against him was that he had

constructed two additional rooms in the Davanagere City

Vocational Boys Students Hostel instead of in the Post-Metric

Boys Student Hostel and had thus violated Rule 3 (1) (i) to

(iii) of the Karnataka Government Service (Conduct) Rules,

1966. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that there was no allegation of any misappropriation of

funds or construction resulting in any loss to the

Government. It is submitted that it was on the basis of the

directions issued by the Taluk Panchayath that the

construction had been carried out by him. It is submitted

that the two hostels are adjacent to each other and that

there is complete ambiguity in the charges, the evidence as

well as the findings of the enquiry officer and that the

imposition of major penalty of reducing the pay scale of the

petitioner by four stages with cumulative effect is completely

unjustified in the light of the fact that the construction had

been carried out in accordance with the directions issued.

8. Our attention is drawn to paragraphs No.14 and

15 of the enquiry report, which is produced at Annexure-A9,

and reads as follows:-

"14. DW1 is DGO No.1 and DW2 is DGO No.2. In their chief examination they have deposed that in Ex.P3, P4 and P6 to P13 the nomenclature of the work was given as per the instructions given by BCM hostel Extension Officer and BCM hostel Extension officer showed the place where the additional rooms have been constructed and

-

only after the lodging of the complaint and spot inspection by PW2 they came to know that in above said documents, the name of the work ( ಾಮ ಾ ) has not been correctly

mentioned. They have also deposed that the estimate and all other documents stated above were made for putting up the construction in the first floor of ವೃ ಪರ ಾಲಕರ ಾ

ಲಯ only. But due to the above said reason the

description of the work ( ಾಮ ಾ ) has not been correctly

mentioned in Ex.P3, P4, P6 to P13.

15. In their cross-examination they admit that in Ex.P3, P4, P6 to P13 the name of the work ( ಾಮ ಾ ) is

mentioned as " ಾವಣ ೆ ೆ ಾಲೂಕು ಾವಣ ೆ ೆ ಪಟ ಣದ ಸರಸ! ಬಡವ$ೆ %&'(

ನಂತರದ ಾಲಕರ ಾ ಲಯಗಳ .ೆಚು0ವ ೊಠ2ಗಳ 3ಾ ಣ ಾಮ ಾ .

They further admits that the work has been carried out in the first floor of " ಾವಣ ೆ ೆ ನಗರದ ವೃ ಪರ ಾಲಕರ ಾ ಲಯ"

situated in the Shivakumaraswamy extension."

9. We have considered the contentions advanced on

either side. The memo of charges issued to the petitioner is

available in the file at Annexure- A7. The English translation

of which reads as follows:-

"APPENDIX 1 CHARGESHEET

1. Against you the DGO.1 Sri. Manjunath Kappale and you 2nd DGO Sri.S.K.Shivakumar, are hereby charged that both of you I the year 2009-10 period while serving in

-

Davanagere Zilla panchayath's Panchayath Engineering sub division as Asst. Engineer and Asst.Exe. Engineer respectively, in Davanagere City Saraswathi Layout in the amount sanctioned for the purpose of the construction of additional rooms for Post Metric Boys Students Hostel, and without constructing the additional rooms to this students hostel, and later without preparing any action plan, without obtaining the approval, have taken up the work of Davanagere City Vocational Boys Students Hostel work and for the payment to the said work, on the basis of the records prepared for the construction of Davanagere City Saraswathi Layout Post Metric Boys Student Hostel have paid the amount to the contractor, and hence both of you being Government servants, not showing the complete dedication in the duty, have behaved in the manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant, and hence you have violated (3)(1) b(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Government Service (Conduct) Rules 1966 and have exhibited your misconduct, and hence this charge that before this Enquiry Authority you are subjected for enquiry.

APPENDIX 2 Details of the Charge sheet (Statement of Imputation of Misconduct)

5. Sri. Manjunath L.O. Advocate, Kandagallu village, Davanagere Taluk and District (hereinafter called as "complainant" in his complaint have complained that you Delinquent Govt. Employees, in Davanagere City, Saraswathi Extension post metric boys student hostel for the purpose of construction of addl. rooms in the year 2009-10 period, under the Backward Area Development

-

Fund Scheme by obtaining sanction of amount and not constructed the rooms, and have misused the amount.

6. In this case from this institution's Technical Department the inspection was done and the report is obtained, in the said report you-1 and 2 DGOs prepared estimation and to the contractor issued work order, bills, have mentioned the name of the work as "Davanagere City Saraswathi Layout post metric boys students hostel additional room construction", In Saraswathi layout, belonging to the Social welfare Department there is Boys Student Hostel, and there any kind of work is being done. Instead in Davanagere City Post Metric Vocational Boys Students Hostel the additional rooms construction work is taken up and is found the construction work is completed. The name of the work is wrongly mentioned, and the bill is being paid. Immediately on sanction for the action plan from the concerned authority in the name of the work the error being taken place could have obtained the modified order. And for all these lapses you 2 and 3rd respondents Sri. Manjunath Kapale and Sri.S.K.Shivakumar is said to be responsible.

[ 7. From the Executive officer of Davanagere Taluk panchayath the report is obtained, and in his report during the period 2009-10, in view of the no. of students increase in Davanagere Vocational Boys Student Hostel and as the shortage of the rooms were found, and hence to construct the additional rooms soon, and during the said period the Backward classes Extension officer Sri.G.Basavarajappa several times have made oral request, and have not submitted any written request. And during that period in the student hostel, the No. of

-

students have increased two times suddenly, hence in the available rooms for providing the accommodation to all the students it was not possible, hence the situation for the construction of rooms to take immediate action was arisen. And in view of this reason, with regard to obtaining the approval for the construction of rooms, was discussed with the higher officers, and during 2009-10 period obtaining the sanction in the BRGF Grant as there was definite reason, and hence the action was taken to start the work earlier, and as per the plan for necessity the work is carried out and there is no other ulterior motive, and with good intention carried out work caused lapse is requested to be condoned.

8. Later, on you 1 and 2 DGOs on the Technical Department report the objections are obtained, and you have denied the said report, and at the time of carrying out the work under emergent circumstances the lapse have arisen, and you have said the same is not intentionally done.

9. When all the above matters are observed, during the period 2009-10 period, instead of the construction of addl. Buildings to the Davanagere City Vocational Boys Student Hostel, by preparing the action plan, and without obtaining the approval the work being done and to the said work prepared estimation and to the contractor issued work order and the bill the name of the work is mentioned as "Davanagere City Saraswathi Layout Post metric boys hostel room construction is confirmed". Hence you 1 and 2 DGOs submitted objections, to drop the

-

charges levelled against you or to stay any kind of suitable and satisfactory reason is being shown.

10. And on verifying the above matters, You 1 and 2 DGOs being the Public Servants it is prima facie seen that in discharging your duties not showing the loyalty have committed the dereliction of duty and have behaved in the manner unbecoming of a public servant.

11. In view of the above reasons, against you DGOs , it is prima facie found necessary the DE is to be conducted against you. You the Delinquent Government employees are Government servants, and you have not shown complete loyalty in discharging your duties and have behaved in the manner unbecoming of a public servant. Hence, in view of the above reasons and on the basis of the evidence in the file, you as per (3)(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 have exhibited misconduct/misbehavior and found to be subjected to the disciplinary action. Hence on the powers conferred under 12(3) of the Lokayuktha Act, against you Delinquent Govt. Employees for initiating disciplinary proceedings and further under rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Prohibition and Appeals) Rules, 1957, recommendation is made for D.E. against the D.GOs and the Disciplinary Authority as per the Ref.1 have requisitioned to conduct the enquiry from this institution, hence this charge against you.