- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2020 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M. RAGHU S/O LATE K. MUNILINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, STORM WATER DRAINS, JAYANAGAR BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 3. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M.A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2020 BEARING NO.B12(6A) PR/213/13-14/19-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.B12(6A)PR/213/13-14/19-20 dated 23.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.1, by which, he was reduced in rank from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Work Inspector. He has also challenged an endorsement bearing No.B12(6A) PR/213/13-14/19-20 dated 23.01.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 refusing to grant promotion to him to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that during the year 2013, he was working as a Junior Engineer in the office of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 Executive Engineer (Project - South) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (for short 'BBMP'). The respondent No.2 issued a charge memo under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1957' for short) and initiated an enquiry in respect of not accounting the iron, iron materials salvaged after demolition of Sri. Puttanna Kanagal Cinema Theatre. The allegation against the petitioner was that when the theatre was demolished, iron, iron materials and waste wood were not taken into stock by the petitioner, though the same were received from one Mr. T.S.Muralidhar. It was alleged that neither iron nor iron materials and the waste wood received by the petitioner were stored or auctioned and thereby caused loss to BBMP. The petitioner replied to the charge memo on 01.12.2014, but, an enquiry officer was not appointed. He submitted a representation dated 18.12.2015 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The respondent No.3 placed the petitioner and others in independent charge of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer vide order dated 05.06.2017 under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 However, the order placing petitioner in independent charge was withdrawn on 08.06.2017 in view of the pending departmental enquiry. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 on 28.06.2017 requesting him to consider his case for placing him in independent charge of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on the ground that the enquiry was not concluded and there was no progress made in the enquiry. However, the respondents held a meeting of the departmental promotional committee to grant promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 02.07.2018. The departmental promotion committee adopted a sealed cover procedure in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Based on the proceedings drawn by the departmental promotion committee at its meeting on 02.07.2018, the respondent No.2 promoted officials who were in the cadre of Assistant Engineer to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer on 12.07.2018. He contends that his juniors were promoted, but he was not granted promotion due to the pendency of the departmental enquiry. He therefore approached this Court in W.P.No.41234/2018 to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion. This Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the concerned respondents to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months, failing which, the petitioner shall be promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, if he is otherwise eligible but subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings. (ii) The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 bringing to their notice the order passed by this Court. It was then that an enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.07.2019 regarding appointment of a retired District Judge as an enquiry officer and an Executive Engineer as a presenting officer. The proceedings of the enquiry commenced on 24.09.2019 on which day, MW.1/SwayamPrabha was examined. She deposed that she was working as an executive engineer during the relevant period, but she did not remember anything relating to the issue. He contends that even after the enquiry officer was appointed, the enquiry was not held within three months, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.41234/2018. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings in CCC No.1729/2019. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 (iii) The petitioner contends that the respondents on coming to know about the contempt proceedings, advanced the enquiry and examined six witnesses and marked Exs.M1 to M15. The petitioner was examined as DW.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D10. He contends that only MW.4 had deposed in favour of the articles of charge framed, but all other witnesses had supported him and no case was made out in support of the charges. He contends that one of the witnesses, who was in- charge of the weigh bridge and who was a crucial witness to speak about the validity of the bills presented before the enquiry officer, did not appear before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report hurriedly holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He contends that the enquiry officer did not look into the evidence adduced on behalf of the department. The enquiry officer looked into photocopies of documents without noticing that they were inadmissible in evidence and though they were opposed being marked. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 with the approval of the respondent No.3 issued a second show-cause notice and sought a reply from the petitioner within two days. The petitioner contends that this was done hurriedly, to get over - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 the contempt proceedings in CCC.No.1729/2019. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the second show- cause notice stating that the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) was in-charge of stock and that he was in no way responsible for the loss of the materials. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 passed the order dated 23.01.2020 reverting the petitioner to a lower cadre under Rule 8(v) of Rules, 1957. The respondent No.1 also issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed this writ petition. 4. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order reverting the petitioner is passed without hearing him. He contends that the respondent No.1 is the competent authority to impose major penalties under Rule 8(v) of Rules, 1957. He contends that contrarily, the respondent No.2 had issued the articles of charge while respondent No.4 had issued the second show-cause notice with the approval of the respondent No.3. Therefore, he contends - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 that the very initiation of the enquiry and the consequent order of punishment are void. (ii) He also contends that the charges against the petitioner is not specific, but vague. (iii) He also contends that the allegations against the petitioner was in respect of the work that was done in the year 2013, while the enquiry was held in the year 2019. Therefore, he contends that the delay in initiation as well as conclusion, vitiates the enquiry. (iv) He contends that the enquiry officer failed to conduct the enquiry as per Rule 11(14) of Rules, 1957. The Rule 11(14) of the Rules, 1957 mandate that on the date fixed for the enquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved, shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. However, he contends that the enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry based on the photocopies of the documents and no original documents were produced as per Rule 11(14) of Rules, 1957. (v) He also contends that except MW.4 none of the witnesses had supported the case of the disciplinary authority. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 (vi) He contends that Ex.M13 would establish that the stock of the steel was to be given to Mr. T.S.Muralidar. Therefore, the charges against the petitioner that the iron and iron materials, wood and wood materials were in the custody of the petitioner cannot be believed. (vii) He further contends that item No.472 of schedule 'B' states that the steel shall be handed over to Mr. T.S.Muralidhar and in turn the Assistant Engineer shall record the same in the measurement book. Therefore, an enquiry ought to have been initiated against Mr. T.S.Muralidhar and not against the petitioner. Thus, he contends that the very initiation of the departmental enquiry is bad in the eye of law. Consequently, the impugned order has to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another - AIR 1959 SC 308; (ii) B.Balachandra Rai Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Limited, by its Chairman and Managing Director and another - ILR 2003 Karnataka 2911; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 (iii) Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others - (2002) 7 SCC 142; (iv) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others - (2009) 2 SCC 570; (v) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B.Karunakar and others - (1993) 4 SCC 727 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed the writ petition and contends that the enquiry officer had given a clear finding that an inventory was drawn in respect of all the salvaged material and the same was counter signed by the petitioner. He contends that an engineer from BDA had handed over these materials to the petitioner and therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner to make appropriate entries in the appropriate register and take steps to bring them for sale. He contends that the fact that the materials were not brought into stock register, but have went missing, proves the articles of charge against the petitioner. He therefore, contends that the enquiry officer was right in submitting a report that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He also contends that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority reverting the petitioner to the post of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 Work Inspector is also proportionate to the charges alleged against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The articles of charge reads as follows: "C£ÀħAzsÀ- I DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀuÉ (¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ):- ²æà JA. gÀWÀÄ, QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (ºÁ° CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ) EªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët) PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ²æà ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀ MqÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß MqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¹PÀÌAvÀºÀ PÀ©ât, ªÀÄgÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAS CPËAn£À°è zÁR¯É vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, PWG 43 Format 5 (MAS Accounts at Site) zÁR¯É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ªÀ»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀ £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 22.88 l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ ¸ÁªÀÄVæ §UÉÎ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw ®¨sÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÇgÀPÀªÁV ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-07-2013gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøï eÁj ªÀiÁr MAS CPËAn£À°è ¯ÉPÀÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¤ÃªÀÅ, zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 22.88 l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ gÁqÀÄUÀ¼À ¯ÉPÀ̪À£ÀÄß ©.r.J JAf¤AiÀÄgïgÁzÀ ²æà n. J¸ï. ªÀÄÄgÀ½ÃzsÀgÀ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¹Öïï / PÀ©âtzÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ EnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎAiÀiÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ zÁR¯Áw PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAzÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£É߯Áè UÀªÀĤ¹zÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëÀåvÀ£À vÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, ¥Á°PÉUÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃwAiÀiÁV 1966gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(iii)£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ. C£ÀħAzsÀ-II DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀuÉ:- C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06-08-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ°è C£ÀĸÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ «zsÁ£À ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ QjAiÀÄ / ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ©¯ï vÀAiÀiÁj¹ S.B.R/B.R ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀjUÉ ªÉÄdgïªÉÄAmï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀºÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ 100% ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ 25% ªÉÄdgïªÉÄAmï ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr ©®Äè ºÁUÀÆ JA.n AiÉÆA¢UÉ Drmï D¦üøÀgï (¥ÁæeÉPïÖ) gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ Drmï ªÀiÁr C£ÀħAzsÀ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄRå C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ¸À»UÁV PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ©®Äè JA.© ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀħAzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©¯ï ¥Á¸ï DqÀðgï £ÉÆA¢UÉ Drmï C¢üPÁj (¥ÁæeÉPïÖ) gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj Drmï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¹.JM PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ J¯ï.M.¹ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ Drmï D¦üøÀgï PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ¯É «vÀj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÀQët ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, £Á®ÄÌ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤AiÀĪÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà ¸ÀzÀj - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 ©®ÄèUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ (ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ-zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPï C£ÀÄß UÉÆwÛ®èzÉà CZÁvÀÄAiÀÄðªÁV PÁtÛ¦à¤AzÀ (¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À¢AzÀ) ZÉPï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëåvÀ£À vÉÆÃj C¢üPÁgÀ«®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ vÀªÀÄä ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ©¯ï vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ZÉPï ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æà gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÀAeÉ 6 WÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt zÀÆgÀªÁt ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ RÄzÁÝV ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ G¥À¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æà gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æà ¥ÀÄÀlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß MqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¹PÀÌAvÀºÀ PÀ©ât, ªÀÄgÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAS CPËAn£À°è zÁR¯É vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ PÀbÉÃj zÁR¯Áw ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PWG 43 format £À°è (MAS Accounts at Site) zÁR¯É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÀlÖqÀ £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 22.88 l£ÀÄß PÀ©âtzÀ ¸ÁªÀÄVæ §UÉÎ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw ®¨sÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÇgÀPÀªÁV ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-07-2013 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøï eÁj ªÀiÁr MAS CPËAn£À°è ¯ÉPÀÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 22.88 l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ gÁqÀÄUÀ¼À ¯ÉPÀ̪À£ÀÄß ©.r.J JAf¤AiÀÄgïgÁzÀ ²æà n. J¸ï. ªÀÄÄgÀ½ÃzsÀgÀ gÀªÀjAzÀ ²æà gÀWÀÄ, QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¹Öïï /PÀ©âtzÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 EnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎAiÀiÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æÃPÀAoÉÃUËqÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æà £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ gÀªÀgÀÄ G¥À¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è zÁR°¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EzÀ£É߯Áè UÀªÀĤ¹zÀ°è ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëöåvÀ£À vÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, ¥Á°PÉUÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À £ÀµÀÖ GAlĪÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ, M§â dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¹Öïï / PÀ©âtzÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ EnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎAiÀiÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ zÁR¯Áw PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£É߯Áè UÀªÀĤ¹zÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëÀåvÀ£À vÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, ¥Á°PÉUÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr 1966gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(iii)£ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ. C£ÀħAzsÀ-III DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖ: DzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1) ²æà ºÉZï. J¸ï. «ªÉÃPï, UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ, ²æà ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ JAlgï¥ÉÊæ¸À¸ï£À zÀÆj£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-07-2013; 2) ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ, UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ, ²æà f. JA. PÀ£ï¸ÀÖæPÀë£ï£À zÀÆj£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¢: 20-07-2013; 3) C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢: 06- 08-2013. C£ÀħAzsÀ-IV DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖ: - - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1) ²æà wæ¯ÉÆÃPï ZÀAzÀæ, C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (zÀQët), §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ºÁ° C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ªÁtÂdå vÉjUÉ E¯ÁSÉ (EAmÉ°eÉ£ïì) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, 2) ²æà PÉ. ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀ, ªÀÄÄRå C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (zÀQët), ºÁ° ªÀÄÄRå C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ) ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ©.©.JA.¦, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, 3) ²æêÀÄw PÉ. ¸ÀéAiÀÄA¥Àæ¨sÀ, PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët), ©.©.JA.¦, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ." The petitioner replied to these articles of charge and stated as follows: "gÀªÀjUÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ :01-12-2014 ªÀiÁ£Àå C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët «¨sÁUÀzÀ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀQUÉ vÀAzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É «£ÁPÁgÀt ¸ÀļÀÄî DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ °TvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢: 06-09-2013 2. ªÀiÁ£Àå C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ)gÀªÀgÀ PÁgÀt PÉý ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:© 12 (6J) ¦Dgï/213/13-14, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-11-2014 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ §È.¨É.ªÀÄ. ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è J¸ï ©AV¥ÀÅgÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 179 gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ºÁUÀÆ F PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀQUÉ vÀAzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀĽî£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆj¹ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 ¥ÀæRgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄZÀÑ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 22-07-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ) gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À DzÀå UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ vÀgÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ B.M.T.F £À°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ EAf¤AiÀÄgï UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-08-2013 gÀAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß B.M.T.F gÀªÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03-08-2013 gÀAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F »AzÉ J¸ï ©AV¥ÀÅgÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 179 gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À G¸ÀÄÛªÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤gÀvÀ£ÁVgÀĪÁUÀ B.M.T.F gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀ°è PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ §AiÀÄ°UÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÉÆà JA§ ¨sÀAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è DvÀÄgÁvÀÄgÀªÁV ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆæ¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ FPɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. C£ÀħAzsÀ-1 ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀªÀ£ÀÄß MqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¹PÀÌAvÀºÀ 22.88 l£ï UÀ¼À PÀ©âtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV DgÉÆæ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ©rJ ¸ÀºÀ¨sÁVvÀézÀ°è ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀªÀjUÉ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢:16-07-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sËwPÀªÁV ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀߪÉà ©rJ gÀªÀjUÉ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sËwPÀªÁV - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß ©rJ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ®¨sÀåªÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ©rJ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ §È.¨É.ªÀÄ ¥Á°PÉUÉ EzÀÄ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ¯Éà ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÁUÀ ±ÉÃRgÀuÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ vÁådå ºÁUÀÆ qÉ©æ¸ï UÀ¼À£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ ©. r. J. gÀªÀgÉà «¯ÉêÁj ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÄ ©rJ gÀªÀgÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ©rJ gÀªÀjAzÀ¯Éà ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¹PÀÌAvÀºÀ 22.88 l£ï UÀ¼À PÀ©âtzÀ ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj 22.88 l£ï UÀ¼À PÀ©âtzÀ gÁqÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ zsÀÈrÃPÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 22.88 l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ gÁqÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÀPÀ° ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶָÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß C¸À° ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ֪ÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwAiÉÆA¢UÉ vÁ¼É ªÀiÁrzÀ°è ¤eÁA±À ºÉÆgÀ©Ã¼À°zÉ. PÀlÖqÀ £É®¸ÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀĪÀ ¸ÉÊeï ¸ÉÆÖãï (Size stone) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©rJ gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁr®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß ©rJ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ©rJ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÁUÀ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀĪÀ PÀ©âtzÀ gÁqÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉÊeï ¸ÉÆÖãï (Size Stone)UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¥ÀÅlÖtÚ PÀtUÁ¯ï avÀæªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É®¸ÀªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀߪÉà ©rJ gÀªÀjAzÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sËwPÀªÁV ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß MqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¹QÌzÀAvÀºÀ 22.88 l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 C£ÀħAzsÀ - 2 ²æÃ. ºÉZï.J¯ï.«ªÉÃPï ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ©°è£À ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV DgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁªÀÄUÁj C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è zÁR°¹ PÁªÀÄUÁj ©°è£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄÄavÀ ªÀiÁUÀðªÁV ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët) gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (AiÉÆÃd£É-zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀwUÁV ¯ÉPÀÌ ±ÁSÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÉPÀÌ ±ÁSÉ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÉPÀÌ ±ÁSÉ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¤ªÀð»¹zÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÉ C¼ÀvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D¼ÀvÉ zÁR¯Áw ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ©®è£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀA§zsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÀqÀvÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÀjUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄðªÀµÉÖà £À£Àß PÁAiÀÄð¥Àj«ÄwUÉƼÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æà ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ JAlgï ¥ÉÊæ¸À¸ï ºÁUÀÆ f.JA. PÀ£ïìlæPÀë£ï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ E¤ß§âgÀÄ ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁªÀÄUÁj ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀ£ÉƧâ EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ w½¸ÀzÉà ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀAvÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ (ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ- zÀQët) gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀévÀB UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÉà PÁªÀÄUÁj ©°è£À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV °TvÀ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ EzÀjAzÀ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ £À£Àß CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛ£À DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07-08-2013 jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 CºÀð£ÁVzÀÄÝ, FUÁUÀ¯Éà £À£Àß ¸ÉêÁ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ ºÁUÀÆ r¥ÉÇèêÀiÁ E£ï ¹«¯ï EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï£À ªÀÄÆ® CAPÀ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ E¯ÁSÁ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:02-03-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ(DqÀ½vÀ)gÀªÀjUÉ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ ªÀÄÄASÁAvÀgÀ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. J¸ï ©AV¥ÀÅgÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.179gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¯ÁåAqï ¦ü°èAUï PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸ÀzÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀQUÉ vÀAzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ DyðPÀªÁV ±ÉÆõÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Á°PÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ£ÁVzÀÝ°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §AiÀįÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ ©üÃw¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀļÀÄî DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶָÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ FUÁUÀ¯Éà G¯ÉèÃR 1- gÀAvÉ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÉÆ£ÀÄß ¢: 06-09-2013gÀ°è vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß °TvÀ ºÉýPÉ AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr 1 ªÀµÀð 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀgÀÆ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀîzÉà ¥ÀÅ£À: EzÉà «ZÁgÀªÁV ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä £À£ÀUÉ PÁgÀt PÉý ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ¨ÉøÀgÀzÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. J¸ï ©AV¥ÀÅgÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.179gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¯ÁåAqï ¦ü°èAUï PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä PÀ¼ÀPÀ½¬ÄAzÀ PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- 20. 1/12/2014 QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ" (underlining provided by me) 8. MW.1-Smt. Swayamprabha was not a witness to any of the allegations made in the articles of charge. However, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 she deposed that the site where Sri. Puttanna Kanagal Cinema Theatre existed was handed over to the BDA on 16.07.2012. She deposed that the Executive Engineer (Project) and the Revenue officer were bound to draw an inventory of all the salvaged material. Accordingly, an inventory of the salvaged material was drawn up by Mr.Raghu, Assistant Engineer on 06.09.2012 and Mr. Badrinath, Executive Engineer which was marked as Ex.M1. The petitioner had also affixed his signature to the inventory on 06.09.2012, the same was marked as Ex.M1(b). She deposed that on 15.07.2013, the Executive Engineer (Project-South) had passed an office order to enter the stock of salvaged material in M.A.S. Account P.W.G - Form No.43 and that the same was served on to the petitioner on 16.07.2013, which was marked as Ex.M2. She alleged that petitioner did not comply with this order. She also deposed that the BDA Engineer Mr. T.S.Muralidhar had received 22.88 tonne of iron on 05.09.2012, as per a list which was marked as Ex.M3(a). The signature of the petitioner found on the list was marked as Ex.M3(b) and 3(c). She deposed that it was the duty of the petitioner to enter the stock of salvaged material received in M.A.S account, P.W.G - Form No.43 and dispose it - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 off by public auction. She deposed that there was nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had taken out any steps for sale of the salvaged iron through public auction. She deposed that the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 06.09.2013 stating that the signature found on Ex.M3 was not his signature and someone had forged it. Ex.M6(c) were the weigh bridge receipts. Ex.M6(d) was the report of the forensic laboratory which established the signature on Ex.M3 acknowledging the receipt of the salvaged material, belonged to the petitioner. 9. During her cross-examination, a suggestion was put to her that the inventory was drawn by the Assistant Engineer of BDA on 06.09.2012 which was marked as Exs.M3 and M3(a) and she accepted the same. She also accepted that the signature of Assistant Executive Engineer of BDA was not found on Ex.M3. She also admitted that the place of the weigh bridge and the dates were not mentioned in Ex.M6(c). Therefore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the fact that the demolition of Sri. Puttanna Kanagal Cinema Theatre yielded waste iron rods and iron material is not much in dispute. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 10. The evidence of MW.2 is of no consequence, as he deposed that he did not remember whether he had verified the documents after receiving a report from the Additional Commissioner (South) but claimed that he had submitted his report based on the report of the Additional Commissioner (South). Likewise, the evidence of MW.3 is also of no consequence. 11. MW.4/Dr.T.S.Muralidhar was the Assistant Engineer who deposed that there was an order to handover all the salvaged material to the BBMP. Accordingly, on 06.09.2012, he drew up an inventory of 22.88 tonnes of iron and scrap materials and handed them over to the petitioner. He also deposed that he had handed over the released material to the petitioner. He identified the charge list which was marked as Ex.M6(b). He also identified the inventory of iron and scrap material drawn as Ex.M3, Ex.M3(a), his signatures as Ex.M3(d) and (e). The signatures of the petitioner was also identified as Ex.M3(b) and (c). He also deposed that a letter dated 07.09.2012 was addressed to the Assistant Engineer enclosing therewith a charge list which was marked as Ex.M10. He deposed that the petitioner claimed that there was no place to - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 store the salvaged material and therefore, the same was stored at the site. He also deposed that BDA officials were finding it difficult to work in view of the salvaged material stocked at site and therefore contractor had addressed a letter to BDA to clear it. Accordingly, BDA had addressed a letter dated 05.09.2012 to the office of Assistant Engineer to handover the salvaged iron and scrap material to BBMP. He deposed that he requested the petitioner to formally take possession of the salvaged material. He deposed that the petitioner took 11 lorries to A.M. Weigh Bridge on Mysore road and got them weighed on 06.09.2012 at 08:00 a.m. He further deposed that after weighing the lorries, the salvaged material was handed over to the petitioner. He deposed that the weigh bridge slips were taken to the office and signatures of the petitioner were obtained on the weigh bridge slips. He deposed that all the events were brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer of BDA which was marked as Ex.M10. He denied that salvaged material was not handed over to the petitioner. 12. In his cross-examination, the petitioner did not suggest that no material was salvaged from the demolition site, on the contrary, MW.4 stated as follows: - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 "PÀ©ât gÁqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©©JA¦UÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹ CAvÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢:05-09-2012 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀiËTPÀ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ²æà gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiËTPÀªÁV ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ©©JA¦ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ PÀ®A-8 gÀ°è PÁt¹zÀAvÉ D ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ©©JA¦ AiÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ ©©JA¦ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼Éà dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ¸ÀܼÀ«®è JAzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹 EqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. (¸ÀéEZÉÒ ºÉýPÉ) D jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹qÀ®Ä D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ °TvÀªÁV K£À£ÀÆß ¤Ãr®è." He further deposed that: "ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƽî JAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ²æà gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiËTPÀªÁV w½¹zÀÝ®èzÉà CªÀjUÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÁUÀ°Ã ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢®è. D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ ªÉéæeï £À°è ¯ÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁ° vÀÆPÀ ºÁQ¸ÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ EzÉÝ. AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀiÁzÀj ¯ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CAvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀzÉà FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀÅUÀ¼À jf¸ÉÖæõÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå ºÁUÀÆ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉ. (¸ÀéEZÉÒ ºÉýPÉ) CªÀÅUÀ¼À ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß °¸ïÖ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉéæeï gÀ¹Ã¢UÀ¼À°è PÁt¹®è. jf¸ÉÖæõÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå PÁt¹zÉ. ªÉéæeï £ÀªÀgÀÄ gÀ¹Ã¢UÀ¼À JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MAzÀ£ÀÄß D¥Á¢vÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. E£ÉÆßAzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. MAzÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¥Á¢vÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. vÀÆPÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¥Á¢vÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß D¥Á¢vÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." However, no suggestion was put to MW.4 that the salvaged material did not weigh 22.88 tonnes. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a building such as theatre is - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 brought down, it yields scrap material like iron bars and beams and other scrap materials which are the properties of the BBMP. Therefore, it is quite probable that salvaged material weighed about 22.88 tonnes as claimed in the articles of charge. 13. MW.5/B.Suresh, was the Deputy Commissioner, BBMP at the relevant point in time. He deposed that the petitioner had received possession of 22.88 tonnes of iron rods and that the charge of the scrap/iron bars was handed over to him and that the petitioner had received the articles as per the charge list. He deposed that there was nothing to show that the salvage material was either sold or entered in the stock register. 14. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not working at the relevant point in time and that he came to know about the misappropriation only when the Executive Engineer informed him. He deposed that he had not physically verified the documents to state that 22.88 tonnes of iron was misappropriated. However, he deposed that the petitioner had received the charge of 22.88 tonnes of salvaged iron from Mr. T.S.Muralidhar, the Executive Engineer of BDA. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 15. MW.6/R.Narayanappa is a handwriting/ fingerprint expert who deposed that the signatures of the petitioner found at Ex.M3 corresponds with the signature found on Ex.M6(d) and (7). This witness was cross-examined. However nothing was elicited from this witness to establish that his finding that the signature found on Ex.M3 corresponded with the signature of petitioner on Ex.M6(d) and (7). 16. Therefore, one thing is certain that the petitioner who was the Junior Engineer at the demolition site, was privy to the fact that 22.88 tonnes of iron was salvaged from demolition site. The documents marked as Ex.M6(c) (weigh bridge slips) established the above fact. The fact that the scrap/iron bars was handed over to petitioner is evident from Ex.M3 and the signatures of petitioner was also found thereon. Therefore, the enquiry officer was justified in submitting his report. However, there is nothing to show that this huge quantity of iron was either entered in the concerned register or was brought to sale through proper channel. 17. However, the disciplinary authority which issued the second show cause notice cursorily considered the reply of the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 petitioner and passed the impugned order. The disciplinary authority failed to take cognizance of the fact that issuance of the second show cause notice is not a mere formality, but is one of the requirement of a free and fair trial. The delinquent official, is entitled to represent against acceptance of the enquiry report. It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to apply his mind to the contentions urged in the reply to the second show cause notice before holding that the report of the enquiry should be accepted. 18. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority shows that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the second show cause notice but the same was cursorily found to be not satisfactory. The disciplinary authority must have considered each and every contentions urged by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice and he must have applied his mind before holding that cause shown by the petitioner was not worthy of acceptance. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority warrants interference. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:13575 WP No. 2509 of 2020 19. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 bearing No.B12(6A) PR/213/13-14/19-20 passed by the disciplinary authority namely the respondent No.1 is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the acceptance of the report of the enquiry in the light of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice and the respondent No.1 shall independently apply his mind and consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. 20. This shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35