- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20557 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MRS.UMA HEBBAL W/O MR.SHIVAKUMAR TELI, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, ORIGIN HARMONY LAYOUT, KURUDU SONENAHALLI ROAD, SEEGEHALLI EXTENSION, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BWSSB, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV AND B.S.SRINIVAS ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 4.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-N, PASSED BY R2 SET ASIDE THE REPORT DATED 18.8.2018 BY THE R1 BOARD VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an official memorandum bearing No: - BWSSB] MuAaAa/ CGu-16/2873/2018-19, dated 04.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 censuring her. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the report dated 18.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.1, by which, respondent No.1 held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice proposing to initiate a domestic enquiry against the petitioner for providing temporary water connection to a multi dwelling residential apartment without following the prescribed guidelines. The petitioner replied to the notice and prayed that the proposed enquiry to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 be dropped. The respondent No.1 appointed the respondent No.2 to enquire into the charges. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was promoted, but the same was kept in a sealed cover by the Department Promotion Committee. The respondent No.2 submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, a second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner, enclosing therewith a copy of the report. The petitioner replied to a second show- cause notice and stated that she was not responsible for providing the temporary connection of water supply to the residential project. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order censuring the petitioner. The petitioner contends that thereafter she requested the respondents to open the sealed cover and grant promotion. However, the said representation was not considered. (ii) Later, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.10.2019, though she was entitled to be promoted with retrospective date when others were promoted, i.e., on 30.06.2018. She contends that respondent No.1 published the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in terms of which, she was placed at serial No.289. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 Later, the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer was published on 10.08.2021. The name of the petitioner was not found, as she was granted promotion vide order dated 31.10.2019. Later, the respondent No.1 published a provisional seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers, where her name was placed at serial No.76 instead of serial No.52. The petitioner objected to the provisional seniority list and requested the respondent No.1 to restore her seniority. However, the respondent No.1 without considering her objections, published a final seniority list placing her at serial No.76. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of censure passed by the respondent No.2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the job of the petitioner was only to recommend or refuse the sanction after conducting a spot inspection. He contends that the petitioner had in fact made her observations about the stage of construction of the building and forwarded it to the higher officials for approval. He contends that the proposal was verified at various levels by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer, Chief Engineer and lastly by the Chairman of the Board. He therefore contends that singling out - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 the petitioner and exposing her to a departmental enquiry was uncalled for, as the temporary connection to the residential apartment was granted after screening the application at various levels. Besides this, he contends that the consumer had submitted a letter of undertaking dated 27.04.2017, undertaking to complete the pending Sewage Treatment Plant as per the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (henceforth referred to as ‘BWSSB’) norms before a permanent connection is provided and also undertook to obtain an Occupancy Certificate (henceforth referred to as ‘OC’). He contends that this undertaking was given to the Chief Engineer and the same was accepted. Consequent thereto, a temporary connection was given to the residential apartment. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any misconduct. He contends that the inquiring authority as well as the disciplinary authority had held the petitioner guilty of misconduct on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exercise diligence in recommending the temporary connection to be given from a particular point instead of from another location. He contends that this was something that the higher officials of the respondent No.1 should have decided. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 contends that since the request of the consumer is perused at various stages in the organization, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, who contend that an association of licensed contractors of the Board had lodged a complaint against the petitioner that sanction was accorded in a single day for water and drainage connections to four multistoried buildings, having 36 floors at Bhattarahalli, without the building being granted an occupancy certificate and without a Sewage Treatment Plant (henceforth referred to as ‘STP’) and Rain Water Harvesting System in place. Based on the said report, the Chief Engineer visited the apartment and on verification of the spot, it was found that the buildings constructed lay within the erstwhile City Municipal Council area. It was found that the requirement of water was nearly one million liters per day and it was recommended to provide water connection to the building from the feeder main running close to the premises at a distance of 300 meters. Hence, an estimate was proposed to provide and lay 150mm dia DI line and link it to the existing 250mm dia line by providing 150X100mm dia control valve. It was stated that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 water supply to the surrounding area was supplied once in a week and once 100mm dia taping was made on a small feeder line, the downstream areas will face water scarcity. As such, it was proper for the petitioner to have recommended to provide the water connection to the building from 450mm dia feeder line, which was 1 kilometer away from the building, for which the estimated cost would be higher than the present estimated cost of Rs.19,26,000/-. It is claimed that the developers of the residential building had not installed Sewage Treatment Plant, Dual Piping System and Rain Water Harvesting, which was mandatory as per the board circular dated 03.03.2016. It is contended that despite these deficiencies, the developers of the building had applied for sanction of connection and the petitioner had favorably recommended it. It is alleged that it was the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to (i) identify suitable feeder line so as to not disturb water supply to the downstream areas, (ii) while sanctioning connection to prepare proper demand lists as per the rules and regulations of the Board and (iii) to recommend to the higher officers to issue valid demand note to the consumers. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to conduct proper spot inspection in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 respect of the said building before recommending to the higher officers to issue valid demand notes to the consumers and thus committed serious dereliction of duty by providing temporary water and sewerage connection. Apart from failure to take appropriate action, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to avoid loss to the Board and to increase the income and thereby committed dereliction of duty. Thus it is contended that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority censuring the petitioner is just and proper and does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer responsible for providing the water and sewage connection was also censured by the respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 04.10.2018, which has become final. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance for the order of censure passed against her. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that till date, a permanent water connection is not provided to the residential apartment, which indicates that the respondents have taken steps in ensuring - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 that the water and sewage connection is not given to an incomplete building. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It appears that an application was filed by the consumer for a temporary water and sewage connection to a multi dwelling residential apartment on 08.06.2017. It appears that the petitioner had inspected the spot and reported that the total sital area was 6,86,615 square feet. She had reported that there were 684 flats and the penthouse and the basement were yet to be completed. She had also reported that the Sewage Treatment Plant was under construction and the rain water harvesting pits were yet to be commissioned. She also reported that there was no occupancy certificate for the building. She reported that an undertaking was given by the owner that the STP will be established and OC will be obtained before sanction of permanent water and sewage connection. She referred to the Board circular dated 03.03.2016, which provided that the consumer should produce occupancy certificate issued by BBMP or local authorities for sanction of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 water and sanitary connection and in case of non production, only a temporary connection would be provided subject to an additional levy of 50% of total water and sanitary charges. Hence, she recommended that provisional water/sanitary connections be provided. She also noticed that the 200 mm dia water supply line is running in front of the above said premises at a distance of 6 meters. She reported that tapping this water line would affect water supply in the surrounding areas. Hence, she proposed for providing and laying 150mm dia DI line and linking to the existing 250mm dia line providing a 150 x 100mm dia link to the apartment along with provision for providing and fixing 250mm dia, 150mm dia and 100mm dia control valves. With these, she recommended that the application of the consumer for water and sewage connection may be sanctioned. This application was thereafter escalated before the Deputy Chief Engineer, who recommended the sanction followed by the Additional Chief Engineer, the Chief Engineer and thereafter, the Chairman of the Board. A letter of undertaking furnished by the consumer is also placed on record which shows that it was addressed to the Chief Engineer, wherein the consumer had undertaken to complete the Sewage - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 Treatment Plant as per the BWSSB norms before connection and also to install the Rain Water Harvesting Plant and to obtain an occupancy certificate before a permanent connection is provided. It is therefore apparent that the petitioner has recommended the case of the consumer for provision of temporary water and sewage connection. If the respondents had any objection against sanction, they must have rejected the application or must have directed the petitioner to reconsider or revisit the proposal on any issue that was pointed out by them. Since the same is not done, the petitioner cannot alone be held guilty for the alleged misconduct. It appears that the petitioner in the normal course of duties, had recommended the case of the consumer for provision of water and sewage connection. Therefore, the impugned proceeding against the petitioner resulting in the disciplinary authority passing an order of censure was totally unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 censuring the petitioner deserves to be interfered with. ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13988 WP No. 20557 of 2021 ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 censuring the petitioner is quashed. iii) Consequently, the report submitted by the inquiring authority that the articles of charge are proved, is also quashed. As a result, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including declaration of her deemed date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and for consequent fixation of the date of her promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26