- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 21060 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.S.SATISH, S/O LATE M SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS GROUP D EMPLOYEE, MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANNUR ROAD, MANDYA - 571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B O ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVLOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANNUR ROAD, MANDYA - 571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1, SRI G B SHARATH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CHARGE MEMO DTD.15.2.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R-1 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing to quash the charge memo dated 15.02.2018 marked at Annexure - A issued by 1st respondent- Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department. 2. Petitioner is working as Group 'D' employee in Mandya Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The impugned charge memo is issued on the premise that petitioner has violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) and 3(2) (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966' for short). The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2018 before initiating the disciplinary enquiry. The annexure to the show cause notice would allege that the petitioner has purchased a site in a residential layout in Mandya without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. 3. Petitioner is before this Court on the premise that he has taken necessary permission from the competent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 authority and this being the position, the disciplinary enquiry is initiated without any basis. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he is relying on the documents issued by 2nd respondent - authority, as such there are no disputed question of facts and elaborate inquiry is not warranted in this case and would urge that the petition is maintainable. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection on the premise that the petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has to question the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also raise a contention that the petition involves disputed questions of facts and the petitioner has to face the enquiry and has to establish his contention in the disciplinary enquiry, as such, the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Admittedly, petitioner is an employee of MUDA, which is a local body and the employees of the said authority are not the Government employees. Therefore, petition is maintainable. The impugned charge memo is issued on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 premise that petitioner has violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) and 3 (2)(i) and (ii) of the Rules, 1966. 7. This Court has perused the records and it is noticed that entire case of the petitioner is based on the permission granted by 2nd respondent. The only question before this Court is, "Whether second respondent who has issued the permission to the petitioner to purchase the property is the competent authority or not?" 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Annexure - D dated 22.08.2009. As can be seen from the said letter issued by 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of 2nd respondent has granted permission to the petitioner to purchase the site by availing loan from nationalised bank. It is also noticed that in the said letter granting permission, a reference has been made to the applications dated 08.07.2009 and 28.07.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking permission. It is further relevant to note that the petitioner has produced the application dated 28.07.2009 seeking permission to purchase the property. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also invite the attention of this Court to the letter dated 02.06.2009 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Urban Development Department on behalf of the Secretary to Urban Development Department. The said letter is addressed to the Commissioner of MUDA. The said letter at Annexure - B would reveal that the power to allot the site is with the authority under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short 'Rules, 1991') 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge referring to Rule 3 of Rules, 1991 that the power to allot site is with the Urban Development Authority. There is no dispute over the fact that the site has been allotted to the petitioner by the Urban Development Authority. 11. Learned HCGP supporting the impugned charge memo would contend that these aspects have to be agitated in the disciplinary enquiry. 12. The question is, "Whether the competent authority has granted permission to purchase the site"? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Rule 23(2) and (3) of the Rules, 1966. The said Rules reads as under: 23 (2) No Government Servant [or any member of his family] shall, except with the previous knowledge of the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family: Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government Servant if any such transaction is- (i) with a person having official dealings with the Government Servant; or (ii) otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer: Provided further that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to the transactions entered into by a member of the family of the Government servant out of his or her own funds (including gifts, inheritance, etc.), as distinct from the funds of the Government servant himself/herself, in his or her own name and in his or her own right. (3) Every Government Servant shall report to the prescribed authority every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him or any member of his family either in his own name or in the name of a member of his family, if the value of such property exceeds the monthly basic salary of the Government Servant; Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained if any such transaction is.- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 (i) with a person having official dealings with the Government Servant; or (ii) otherwise than through a regular ore reputed dealer: Provided further that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to the transactions entered into by a member or the family of the Government servant out of his or her own funds (including gifts, inheritance, etc.,) as distinct from the funds of the Government servant himself/herself, in his or her own name and in his or her own right. 14. By referring to the aforementioned provision, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the previous sanction of the Government is required to purchase the immovable property. Learned counsel referring to Rule 23(5) of the Rules, 1966 would contend that the prescribed authority for the Group - D employee would be the Head of Office in case of Government servant holding any Group-C or Group-D post. He would further submit that Rules have been adopted by 2nd respondent - Urban Development Authority. 15. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent does not dispute the fact that the Rules, 1966 have been adopted. 16. If the Rules, 1966 are applicable to 2nd respondent, then the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 would be the prescribed authority to issue permission before purchasing the property. 17. It is an undisputed fact that Commissioner of MUDA is the Head of Office and it is also not in dispute that he is the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority. Annexure - 'C' in unmistakable terms would reveal that the Commissioner has granted permission to purchase the site. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that initiation of proceeding against the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner has not obtained requisite permission from the competent authority is totally misconceived. Initiation of the enquiry against the petitioner is nothing but the gross abuse of the process. 19. This Court has already taken a view that the petitioner's case is based on the undisputed documents marked at Annexures - B, C and D. Hence, there is no need to drag the petitioner to disciplinary enquiry. 20. It is also relevant to note that in a proceeding before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which was initiated by the Civil Servant in Application No.4420/2021 and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8140 WP No. 21060 of 2021 connected matters, similar charges are quashed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the State has accepted the said order and has not challenged the said order. 21. As already noticed, the petitioner herein is not a civil servant and he is the employee of the local body. As such, Writ Petition is maintainable. The petitioner is also standing in the same position as that of applicant in aforementioned application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal vis-à-vis the disciplinary action. Hence, the impugned charge memo dated 15.02.2018 is required to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. 22. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31