- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.567 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S BUILDING B.R AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. SRI. V. N. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT NO.105/15, I 'C' MAIN ROAD MANJUNATHANAGAR, ITTAMADU BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU -560 085 CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2019 IN APPLICATION BEARING NO.4816/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This writ petition is filed under Articles – 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the Registrar, Karnataka - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 Lokayukta, Bengaluru, calling in question the order dated 30.11.2019 in Application No.4816/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereby the Tribunal has set-aside the order impugned at Annexures-A11, A12, A14 and A15 dated 03.08.2017, 29.11.2017, 02.07.2019 and 04.07.2019 respectively, in so far as respondent No.3 / applicant is concerned. Further, directed the respondent No.1 - Government to pay all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits, to which the applicant / respondent no.3 is legally entitled, with a time bond order of three months. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing the present petition are as under: The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer under respondent No.1 – Department as per order dated 24.02.2012. Thereafter, on deputation, he was posted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 to the Bengaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’ fort short), vide order dated 02.01.2013. Thereafter, by the order of Commissioner of BDA dated 24.07.2013, the applicant was posted to R.T.Nagar Sub-Division. In the year 2016, the applicant was repatriated to his parent department. Thereafter, he was reposted to Health and Family Welfare Services Department vide Notification dated 16.03.2016. The entire period of service of the applicant with BDA was from 24.07.2013 to 24.02.2016. 4. One Sri.M.P.Nrupathunga, filed a complaint against the applicant before the Upa-Lokayukta alleging that certain sites, which were belonging to BDA, were grabbed by certain anti-social elements with the aid of corrupt officials and therefore the corrupt officials responsible for the same be punished. A Notice came to be issued to the applicant on 10.01.2017 by the petitioner-Lokayukta, which was replied on 09.02.2017 by the applicant, contending that by the time the complaint was lodged to the Lokayukta i.e., on 25.10.2016, the applicant had already been relieved of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 duty with BDA. So also contended that no complaint has been submitted directly to the applicant at any point of time regarding the grievance of the complainant and since he was relieved from the duty of BDA, he was not in the position to take any action, along with other contentions, in the aforesaid reply. 5. A report came to be submitted by the petitioner under Section-12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1994, upon which the Government passed an order entrusting the enquiry under Rule-14A for initiating joint inquiry against the applicant and another. The articles-of-charges were framed by the Enquiry Officer and served on the applicant to which he submitted his reply. Not satisfied with the reply the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry. Ultimately, in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges against the applicant stands proved and submitted his report, which was forwarded by the petitioner-Lokayukta to the Government along with recommendation. Upon such recommendation, a second show-cause notice came to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 issued along with a copy of the Enquiry report, to which the applicant submitted his reply. Not satisfied with the reply, the Government imposed penalty of withholding four annual increments of the applicant with cumulative effect and also deferring the promotion of the applicant for a period of four years, whenever he becomes due for promotion. Calling in question the order imposing the penalty stated supra, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No. 4816 of 2018. 6. Upon service of notice respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Government filed their statement of objections, contending that the applicant is not entitled for any relief sought in the application. It is further stated that there is a specific allegation in the complaint that the sites belonging to BDA were grabbed by certain anti-social elements. Further, it is stated that the BDA employees who have colluded with land grabbers are liable to be dealt with and that the charges are proved in the enquiry and along with other contentions sought to dismiss the application. The petitioner also filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 separate statement of objections, contending that the application is misconceived and bereft of any merits, and the conduct of the applicant disentitles him from seeking any relief. 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties before it at paragraph nos. 12, 13 and 14 reasoned that the Enquiry Officer has failed to consider the Guidelines issued by the BDA indicating the role and responsibilities of the Field Level Officers to deal with unauthorized construction/ encroachments on BDA acquired / allotted lands / notified lands / metropolitan area and that Guideline No.5 clearly states that the concerned JE / AE of the said Subdivision shall be the custodian of the land and other properties of BDA and it is their responsibility to safeguard it from encroachment. 8. Further, the Tribunal has observed that the applicant was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time with BDA and as per the Guidelines at point number (a) describes the role of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 Assistant Executive Engineer. This Engineer, on receipt of a report in writing from JE and AE of the respective subdivision, shall on the very next day issue notice under Section-33(1) of the BDA Act and under Section-321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 in the prescribed proforma enclosed as Annexure-C to the said Guidelines to the concerned persons, giving them three days time to reply. 9. The Tribunal has found that there is no such report by the concerned JE / AE for the applicant to take any action and the Enquiry Officer failed to consider these aspects of the matter. Apart from that, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is a revision power vested with the Government to call for records of a particular case, examine the same and pass appropriate order. So also, the misconduct alleged against the applicant has not been established during the course of enquiry. Despite the same, the Enquiry Officer recorded a perverse finding holding that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 the applicant is guilty of misconduct, which is not sustainable in law. 10. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application, setting-aside the orders passed against the applicant impugned in the application stated supra and directed the respondent No.1 - Government to pay all consequential benefits, including the monetary benefits to which the applicant is legally entitled within a time bond limit. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the petitioner-Lokayukta, in the present petition. 11. Heard Sri. Joseph Anthony learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rajipura, learned AGA for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 12. Sri.Joseph Antony, reiterated the very same contentions taken before the Tribunal stating that the applicant has failed in his duty to protect the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 sites/properties belonging to the BDA and committed a misconduct, which has been established in the enquiry and appropriately considered by the Enquiry Officer, holding that the charges against the applicant has been proved, which has been considered by the State, ultimately resulting in imposing punishment of withholding four annual increments, so also, promotion whenever it becomes due for a period of four years. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 13. Further, Sri.Joseph Antony submitted at the judicial review in Departmental Proceedings is limited and the Tribunal / Court should ordinarily not interfere with them by reappreciating the evidence / findings of the Enquiry office and substitute their own findings or conclusion for that of the Administrative Authorities unless the findings or conclusion arrived at are based on absolutely ‘no evidence’ or ‘totally perverse’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, sought to allow the petition, set-aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 orders passed by the authorities impugned in the application. 14. Sri.Vikas Rajipura submitted that the State has not filed any petition against the order passed by the Tribunal, however supported the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 15. Having gone through the entire records and the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities, which calls for any interference at the hands of this Court. The reason being the Tribunal, after going through the Guidelines, which was filed along with the Memo dated 16.07.2019 regarding delegation of powers for detection, prevention and removal of unauthorised encroachment on BDA lands, has opined that the Field Level Officers are the JE and AE of the concerned subdivision, they are the custodian of the lands and other properties of the BDA and it is their responsibility to safeguard the land from encroachment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 16. So far as the role of Assistant Executive Engineer/Executive Engineer are concerned, at point No.(a) of the said Guidelines, the AE/EE immediately after receipt of a report in writing by JE/AE of the respective subdivision, shall on the very next day issue Notice under Section-33(1) of BDA Act, as well as Section 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, in the prescribed proforma, against the persons, giving them three days time to reply to the action contemplated under said Notices. There is nothing placed on record before the Enquiry Officer to suggest that there is such a report indeed, submitted by concerned the JE/AE before the AEE and he has failed to take any action thereafter. There is no material to substantiate the misconduct alleged against the applicant in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has failed to consider this aspect of the matter, however, proceeded to conclude the enquiry proving that the charges against the applicant stands proved. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39605-DB WP No. 567 of 2024 17. The Tribunal after going through the entire records, so also the Enquiry Report held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to take perverse and the misconduct alleged against the applicant has not been established. Accordingly, held that the order of the Government on such a faulty Enquiry Report is unsustainable in law and set- aside the orders so far as the applicant is concerned. 18. We are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. In the result, the petition sans merits is dismissed. It is needless to state that the Government shall comply with the directions of the Tribunal without any further delay. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1