- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 104652 OF 2022 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: IBRAHIM BHAGHAWAN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 320, 2ND STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMIT ANAND DESHPANADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY PWD, PORT AND INLAND WATER DEPATMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY PWD, PORT AND INLAND WATER DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES NO.1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKYHA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560001. 4. THE UPA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKYHA, M S BUILDING, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.16 10:23:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: I) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3.6.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION NO. 1751/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. II) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 IS PASSED IN NO.LOE 187 SEEV 2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A31 TO THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) 1. The applicant in Application No. 1751/2021 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short KSAT), is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the KSAT, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – Lokayukta, and perused the material on record. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: 4. One Sri Krishna Prasad submitted a complaint to the petitioner, who was then working as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Ward No. 91, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, inter alia alleging that his neighbour, Sri.Sukumar, was putting up illegal and unauthorised construction on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 adjacent/neighbouring property in violation of sanctioned plans building bye-laws, zoning regulations, etc. 5. In pursuance of the said complaint, the AEE issued a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (for short, the KMC Act), which was followed by a Provisional Order dated 03.11.2012 under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act. Thereafter, a confirmation order dated 15.11.2012 was passed under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act which was followed by a demolition order dated 04.01.2013 all of which reported to this Court in W.P. No. 51889 of 2012, which was disposed of on 07.01.2013 permitting the writ petitioner to approach the KSAT by filing an appeal, and the demolition was stayed until disposal of the appeal. In the Meanwhile, Sri. Krishna Prasad filed a complaint on 05.01.2013 before the Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, alleging that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as there was complete inaction on the petitioner’s part to take steps to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 6. In pursuance of the said complaint, an enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta under Section 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Additional Registrar Enquiry Officer (for short ARE-I) was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. 7. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and contested the proceedings, during which the Lokayukta adduced oral evidence of Sri.Krishna Prasad (PW- 1) and marked documents Exs.P1 to P13. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and submitted defence documents at Ex.D1 to D9. 8. After hearing both sides, the Additional Registrar Enquiry Officer (for short ARE-I) passed an order dated 13.03.2017 holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. It was also recorded that the petitioner had earlier retired from service on 31.05.2014. 9. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by ARE-I, the file was placed before the Upa-Lokayuktha, who proceeded to pass the impugned recommendation as hereunder: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 “The Government by its Order dated 14/11/2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against Sri Ibrahim Bhagwan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Delingquent Government Official, for short as 'DGO') and entrusted the Departmental Inquiry to this Institution. 2. This Institution by Nomination Order No.LOK/INQ/14-A/606/2014 dated 21/11/2014 nominated Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, as the Inquiry Officer to frame charges and to conduct Departmental Inquiry against DGO for the alleged charge of misconduct, said to have been committed by him. 3.The DGO was tried for the following charge:- "While you the DGO Sri Ibrahim Bhagwan working as Assistant Executive Engineer, in BBMP Ward No.91, Shivajinagar Sub Division at Bangalore has failed to take action against Sri M.Sukumar for having illegally constructing building in violation of the sanctioned plan in Site No.10, Ward No.91, Bharathinagar, Bangalore by Sri M. Sukumar and thereby you the DGO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966". - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 4. The Inquiry Officer (Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1) on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has held that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the afore-stated charge against DGO. 5. On re-consideration of the evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is hereby recommended to the Government to accept the report of Inquiry Officer. 6. As per the first oral statement submitted by DGO, he has retired from service on 31/5/2014: 7. Having regard to the nature of charge proved against DGO Sri Ibrahim Bhagwan, it is hereby recommended to the Government to impose penalty of withholding 10% of pension payable to DGO Sri. Ibrahim Bhagwan for a period of 10 years. 8. Action taken in the matter shall be intimated to this authority. Connected records are enclosed herewith.” As can be seen from the impugned recommendation, the Upa-Lokayukta accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and directed that the imposition of withholding of 10% pension be submitted to the State Government, to impose the penalty of withholding 10% of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 the pension payable to the petitioner for a period of 10 years. The contents of the recommendation reveal that the Upa-Lokayukta accepted the Enquiry Officer’s findings and recommended to the State Government imposition of the penalty of withholding 10% of the pension payable to the petitioner for a period of 10 years. 10. In pursuance of the recommendation, the State Government passed a penalty order dated 10.01.2020, accepting the recommendation and imposing the said penalty. 11. Aggrieved by the enquiry report, recommendation, and penalty order, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Belagavi, in Application No. 1751 of 2021. The same was opposed by the respondents. By the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, the KSAT confirmed the enquiry report, recommendation, and penalty order, and dismissed the petitioner’s application. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the unchallenged oral - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner (Ex. D1 to D.9) explaining the delay in demolition proceedings. It was contended that the petitioner exercised all due care by forwarding the file to the Area Engineer, who conducted spot inspection, took photographs, and initiated further steps, resulting in the issuance of a notice, followed by a Provisional Order dated 03.11.2012, a final confirmation order dated 15.11.2012 and ultimately, demolition of the illegal construction on 04.01.2013. 13. It was further submitted that no negligence or dereliction of duty could be attributed to the petitioner, and therefore, the enquiry report is liable to be set aside. Additionally, it was contended that the Upa-Lokayukta’s recommendation is cryptic, unreasoned, and a non-speaking order, lacking any reason as to why a major punishment of withholding 10% pension for 10 years was imposed after the petitioner’s retirement. 14. It was further submitted that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, and both the recommendation and penalty order deserve to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 set aside. It was contended that though these points were raised before the KSAT, the same were not considered, especially regarding the dis-proportionality of the punishment. 15. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner, now aged 73 years, has already suffered a penalty for 3½ years, and without prejudice to other contentions, he would accept a modification limiting the penalty period only to four years. 16. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the impugned orders were passed based on due consideration of the enquiry report and recommendation, and do not warrant interference by this court in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed. 17. Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Lokayukta) supported the recommendation, enquiry report, and penalty order, submitting that the petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 18. Upon perusal of the recommendation and penalty order, it is evident that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, including the petitioner’s - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 retirement prior to submission of the enquiry report, the imposition of a major penalty of withholding 10% pension for 10 years is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged. Taking into consideration the lapse of time and the petitioner’s age which is about 73 years, the fact that he has already suffered the penalty for 3½ years, and applying the doctrine of proportionality, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned recommendation and penalty order by reducing the period of withholding of pension from ten years to four years, commencing from the date of implementation of the original order. 19. It is made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is hereby partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi is hereby modified. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9669-DB WP No. 104652 of 2022 iii) The impugned recommendation of the Upa- Lokayukta and the order of the State Government are hereby modified to the extent that the penalty of withholding 10% of the pension of the petitioner shall be for a period of four years only, instead of 10 years, and the period of 4 years shall be from the date of implementation of the original order. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25