Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35786
WP No. 19955 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19955 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH M. DHARESHWARA
SON OF M.S. DHARESHWARA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
O/O JOINT COMMISSIONER,
YELAHANKA ZONE
BYATARAYANPURA,
AMRUTHA HALLI ROAD
BANGALORE
RESIDING AT NO.135, 3RD MAIN,
5TH CROSS, VIDHYANYAPURA,
BANGALORE-97
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ACHARI MANJULA VITTALA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by
MARKONAHALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH TO GOVERNMENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP)
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-09
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35786
WP No. 19955 of 2024
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING
NO. NAAE 108 MNU 2023 DATED 16.01.2024 OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-K) AND ALSO THE CHARGE MEMO
BEARING NO.LOK/DE/18/2024/A.R.E-9 DATED 25.04.2024 OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L) IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND TO GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
There is no representation for the petitioner. Even on the
last date of hearing, there was no appearance for the
petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in
prosecuting this writ petition.
[ 2. The petitioner has challenged an order entrusting
the enquiry to the Lokayuktha as well as the validity of Articles
of charge.
NC: 2024:KHC:35786
3. The petitioner was accused of not taking steps to
prevent unauthorized construction, while he was working as
Assistant Engineer, Peenya Industrial Sub-Division between
15.11.2016 and 03.08.2017. The respondent No.2 after receipt
of a complaint, investigated it and submitted a report under
Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 to the
State Government that the petitioner had indulged in
dereliction in duty and had violated the Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of
the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, The
respondent No.1 after perusing the records felt that the
petitioner and an Assistant Executive Engineer are to be
proceeded against departmentally and hence, passed an order
dated 16.01.2024, entrusting the conduct of the enquiry to the
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 framed the Articles of
charge alleging that the petitioner while working as Assistant
Engineer at Peenya Industrial Sub-Division between 15.11.2016
to 03.08.2017 had failed in his duty to prevent unauthorized
construction. Since the entrustment of the enquiry by the
respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 cannot be faulted as the
same was based on the satisfaction of respondent No.1, the
same cannot be interfered with. Similarly, the petitioner cannot
NC: 2024:KHC:35786
assail the correctness of an Articles of charge in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
[(2006) 12 SCC 28].
4. With the above observation, the petition stands
disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
