- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 148008 OF 2020 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI RAVINDRA S/O. DYAMAPPA BAGALKOTE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNAVALLI-591 117, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTORATE, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 9TH FLOOR AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590 002. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582 103. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, GADAG-582 103. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2020 AT ANNEXURE F, INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 14.01.2020 AT ANNEXURE E; AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH The ORDER BEARING NO.29461 DMA 23 EQBG 2019-20 DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND REPORT BEARING NO.JINAKO/SIBANDI/VAHI-102/2018-19 OF RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 14.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts stated and the grounds urged, the petitioner above named prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: a) Call for the entire records pertaining to the order dated 05.02.2020 at Annexure F, investigation report dated 14.01.2020 at Annexure E. b) Issue a writ of Certiorari and quash i) order bearing no.29461 DMA 23 EQBG 2019-20 dated 05.02.2020 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-F. ii) Report bearing no.JiNaKo/Sibandi/Vahi- 102/2018-19 of respondent no.5 dated 14.01.2020 vide Annexure-E. c) Issue any other writ or order this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Shri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. 3. The petitioner, an employee of the Department of Municipal Administration, working in the cadre of Senior Health - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 Inspector, is at the doors of this Court calling in question the articles of charge served upon the petitioner on a solitary score that a departmental enquiry against the pay scale 11600-21000, the Director of Municipal Administration is the competent authority. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Sivaprasad Shantanagourdar takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition with a particular reference to a notification dated 09.01.2015, the said notification reads as follows: “NOTIFICATION In supersession of all the orders/information issued by Government of Karnataka earlier from time to time in this regard, the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) and (2) of the Section 321 and Sub-Section (2) and (3) of the Section 388 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964) hereby delegate the powers of the Government with immediate effect Regional Commissioner, Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA), Deputy Commissioner (DC), Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar of the Revenue District as specified below:” 5. Insofar as the competent authority to hold departmental enquiry being the Directorate of Municipal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 Administration is found at Sl. No.55 of the said notification, which reads as follows: Delegated in Sl. No. Section Subject Presently vested with Tah AC DC RC DMA 55. Conduct of enquiry in all matters of pay scale (11600-21000) DMA - - All ULBs - - 6. Learned HCGP submits that the objections have been filed in justification of the Project Director issuing the charge sheet. The objections insofar as the reply to the said contention is as follows: “11. It is submitted that, the statement made by the petitioner referring Annexure-E, the report submitted by the Respondent No.5 to the (1) The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department (2) The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration Bangalore (3) The Regional Commissioner, Belagavi and (4) The Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, to take action against the petitioner is true and admitted. Because the Respondent No.5 being a supervisory authority over all the Urban Local bodies in the district after receipt of 3-4 complaints from the public against this petitioner and after verifying the records of the Urban Local bodies where this petitioner has worked, and then submitted his report at Annexure-E to the superior officers. 12. It is submitted that, the statement made by the petitioner referring Annexure-F i.e., copy of letter bearing No.29461/DMA/23/EQBG/2019-20, dtd: 05-02-2020 by Respondent No.2 addressed to Respondent No.4 is true and admitted. But the other statements that without ascertaining the request of Respondent No.5 the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 Respondent No.2 has issued Annexure-F is not admitted. But the Respondent No.2 after carefully examining the report of Respondent No.5 at Annexure-E found the truth in the report about the further action against this petitioner has issued Annexure-F. Therefore, this allegation against Respondent No.2 is without any basis, hence same is denied in toto. 13. It is submitted that, the petitioner filed RTI application before the Respondent No.5 for supply of certain documents mentioned in the application and the same were furnished to the petitioner is true. 14. It is submitted that, the allegation made by the petitioner that Respondent No.5 has no such authority to submit report at Annexure-E is not correct and not admitted. The Respondent No.5 being a supervisory authority over all the Urban Local Bodies in the district having such powers to submit his reports to the Superior authority about the conduct and work of any employee or Urban local bodies and its functions. The report of Respondent No.5 at Annexure-E based on the investigation of the records of Laxmeshwar, Naregal, Ron, Mundargi TMC's wherein the petitioner working as a Chief Officer. Hence, contention of the petitioner cannot be considered at all.” 7. It is the case of the State that the Project Director is in a supervisory capacity to all the works that the petitioner undertook. Therefore, the Project Director was delegated to issue the charge sheet against the petitioner. 8. In the light of the notification quoted supra and the competent authority being only the Directorate of Municipal Administration, the charge sheet admittedly issued against the petitioner is admittedly without authority of law. On this short - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17778 WP No. 148008 of 2020 score the petition desires to succeed albeit in part. The charge sheet stands quashed. Liberty is reserved to the State to act in accordance with law, if they so desire at this juncture. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24