- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51493 OF 2019 (S-DE) BETWEEN: MR. C.V. SURESH BABU S/O LATE C.J. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3, 2ND MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE - 570009 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 01 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY 2. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU - 570024 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560001 4. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 5. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2021, PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO CORRECT THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.5. DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 23.05.2023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4; SMT. GEETHADEVI M. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2022, RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE- A BEARING NO.UDA 11 ACM 2016 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.£ÀCE 11 J¹JA 2016, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 17.09.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 entrusting a departmental enquiry against him - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 to the respondent No.3 (Karnataka Lokayukta) under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957'). The petitioner has also sought for quashing the proceedings in No.UPLOK-2/DE/234/2019/ARE-13 on the file of respondent No.3 pursuant to the order of entrustment referred above. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the respondent No.1 vide order dated 27.08.1987. He was thereafter promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer on 22.09.2009 and as Assistant Commissioner, Zone -VII on 25.09.2013. He worked in the office of respondent No.2 till 26.05.2014. While he was working as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII, a complaint was lodged by a resident, Mr. A. Anand Kumar, who claimed that one Mr. Zubair Ahmed Khan and Mr. Zaheer Hussain Khan, had constructed a commercial building in violation of sanction plan. It was further alleged that apart from running hotel and restaurant, they were also using the property for residential purpose and therefore, requested to initiate appropriate action. The complaint so lodged was also placed before the Karnataka - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 Lokayukta, Mysuru. The complaint was forwarded to the respondent No.2, who was requested to take action against the concerned owners. The predecessor of the petitioner had therefore, caused a notice on 29.06.2010. Nonetheless, the owners of the property had proceeded and completed the construction. After the petitioner assumed charge, he found that the plan of the building was sanctioned on 21.01.2009 and that though the plan was sanctioned for ground and two upper floors, the owners of the property had constructed ground plus four upper floors. (ii) The petitioner therefore issued a notice dated 20.12.2013 directing the owners to remove the construction put up and bring it in line with the sanctioned plan. The complainant was also informed about the notice issued to the owners of the building. Since the owners of the building did not reply, the petitioner caused a final notice dated 22.01.2014 calling upon them to remove the construction. The petitioner therefore, contends that he had acted in accordance with law soon after he came to know of the complaint lodged against the illegal construction put up by the owners of the building. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 (iii) When things stood thus, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 30.01.2014 with the respondent No.3 alleging inaction on the part of the petitioner to bring the construction in line with the sanctioned plan. The respondent No.3 caused a notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.2 calling for their explanation. The respondent No.3 without considering the fact that the petitioner worked as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII between 20.09.2013 to 26.05.2014 and that the construction was completed way back in the year 2009, recommended to the respondent No.4 to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that this report was faulty in as much as it was presumed by the respondent No.3 that the construction was put up during the tenure of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner, while in fact it was not. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 issued a letter dated 09.03.2016 to Director of Municipal Administration to hold disciplinary enquiry in view of the report of respondent No.3 dated 17.11.2015. Following this, the Director of Municipal Administration called for the records. The respondent No.2 submitted a factual report to the Director of Municipal Administration stating that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 petitioner worked as Assistant Commissioner only for a period of eight months and had taken necessary action against the illegal construction. Following this, Zonal Commissioner of Mysuru City also submitted a report dated 17.08.2017 to respondent No.4 mentioning the factual aspects of the case. The respondent No.4 then submitted a report dated 19.12.2017 to the respondent No.3 that the construction over the property was done in the year 2009, while the petitioner had worked as Assistant Commissioner between 20.09.2013 and 26.05.2014. He also recommended that no disciplinary action be initiated against the petitioner and requested that intended disciplinary proceedings against him be dropped. Nonetheless, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 entrusting the departmental enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. Following this, respondent No.2 issued articles of charge and called upon the petitioner to reply. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of entrustment as well as articles of charge, the petitioner is before this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plan that was sanctioned to put up construction over the building in question was in the year 2009 and that the owners of the property had put up construction illegally, which is evident from the notice dated 29.06.2010 issued by the predecessor of the petitioner. He therefore, contends that there was nothing on record to show that the construction put up on the property was during the tenure of the petitioner. He contends that the respondent No.4 after having perused the material on record, had specifically reported that the petitioner was not in office when the illegal construction was put up and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner should be dropped. He contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have proceeded blindly to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, though there was nothing to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the illegal construction over the property. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order entrusting the departmental enquiry to the respondent No.3 and consequent articles of charge issued by respondent No.3, are liable to be set at naught. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 4, who have filed a statement of objections contending inter alia that the petitioner was discharging duty at the relevant point in time and failed to take action against the illegal and unauthorized construction. It is also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the issue is still pending consideration before the respondent No.3 and it is for the petitioner to establish his innocence before the respondent No.3 by adducing evidence to establish that no construction was put up during his tenure. It is also contended that the petitioner had failed to take action under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, by not demolishing the unauthorized construction to bring it in line with the sanctioned plan and therefore, the disciplinary action against the petitioner was justified. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 reiterated the above contentions. 7. The respondent No.3 has not filed any statement of objections. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that unauthorized construction was not brought - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 down by the petitioner and no steps were taken in that regard after the petitioner took charge as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII on 25.09.2013. He therefore, contends that every day's delay in not taking action exposed the petitioner for an action. He contends that the petitioner was equally liable for allowing the construction to remain on the property and since he did not take any steps, the impugned disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is just and proper and he cannot question the same. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the illegal construction was not put up during the tenure of the petitioner but he failed to take follow-up action, after he took charge. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 10. The fact that the petitioner was promoted and posted as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII and that he - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 worked between 20.09.2013 and 26.05.2014 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the plan sanctioned was in the year 2009, authorizing the owners of the property to put up construction. It is also not in dispute that the predecessor of the petitioner had issued a notice dated 29.06.2010 to the owners of the property to show cause why construction put up by them should not be removed. There is nothing on record to show that the construction so put up was during the tenure of the petitioner as the Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII. It may be that the petitioner was negligent in not taking further action against the owners of the building to take steps under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. However, the gravamen of the articles of charge as well as report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 submitted by the respondent No.3 shows that it proceeded on the assumption that the construction was put up during the tenure of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII. It appears that the petitioner after coming to know of the complaint lodged against the unauthorized construction, had issued notices dated 20.12.2013 and 22.01.2014. Therefore, the petitioner had taken some action although belated. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 However, that did not justify the allegations against the petitioner that the construction put up over the property was during his tenure as Assistant Commissioner, Zone - VII. The respondent No.1 without applying its mind to the report of the respondent No.3 and without calling for information from respondent Nos.2 and 4, blindly accepted the report of respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, the basis for the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the consequent order passed by the respondent No.1 entrusting the departmental enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, are flawed and hence, calls for interference by this Court. Consequently, following order is passed. ORDER i) This writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order bearing No.£ÀCE 11 J¹JA 2016, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 17.09.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 entrusting a departmental enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11332 WP No. 51493 of 2019 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 is quashed. iii) Consequently, the proceedings in UPLOK- 2/DE/234/2019/ARE-13 and articles of charge framed by the respondent No.3 are also quashed. iv) The respondent No.2 shall take steps to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law, which shall at any rate be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54