- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101020 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVINDRA S/O. DYAMAPPA BAGALKOTI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. CHIEF OFFICER, TMC, KUKANUR, R/O. KUKANUR, TQ. KUKANUR, DIST. KOPPAL -583232. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHANTHARAJU, AND SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA N.B, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GADAG, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG -582101. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, D.C. OFFICE, GADAG -582101. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 GADAG, DIST. GADAG -582101. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, RON TMC RON, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG -582209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDER OR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN BEARING NO.263371/DMA/139/AUDT/2018- 19 DATED 12.02.2021 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT SL.NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-J DATED 08.09.2020, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 calling in question, institution of a departmental enquiry, against the petitioner on the basis of an audit report, dated 12.02.2021. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shantharaju and Sri.Shivarudrappa N.B. appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Smt.Krithilata R. Patil-HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: 3. It would suffice, if the issue would be noted from 26.07.2014 the date on which the petitioner was transferred from Kalaghatagi to Ron Town Municipal Council, the petitioner then was transferred out of Ron on 19.05.2017 and pursuant to the said order of transfer gets relieved on 22.05.2017. It transpires that, an audit is conducted of the Town Municipal Council, Ron for the period between 2017-2018 for the works that the Town Municipal Council has undertaken in the past. 4. Based upon the said audit report on 19.01.2019, the 1st respondent directed municipal administration to issue a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner then appears to have submitted his compliance report and later comes the charge against the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 initiating a departmental enquiry, and a show-cause notice thereon enclosing the charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply on 08.09.2020 and the enquiry officer is appointed to hold a departmental enquiry. It is at that juncture, the petitioner is before this Court, in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would be vehemently contend that the procedure stipulated in law is not followed and the conduct of a departmental enquiry is not what as envisaged, unless the report of the audit is taken to its logical conclusion in terms of Sections 294 and 295 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), he would seek quashment of the proceedings. 6. Learned HCGP however would submit that there are audit objections against the petitioner. The audit objections must be enquired into and therefore the charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner. The petitioner can participate in the enquiry and come out clean if he has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 done nothing. Therefore she would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue now revolves around a narrow compass. The dates, link in the chain of events, and the incidents that have taken place from 2014 to 2020 are a matter of record. It would not require any reiteration. The issue is whether departmental enquiry can be instituted against the petitioner on the basis of an audit report submitted under Section 293 of the Act. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice Sections 293 and 295 of the Act, which reads as follows: 293. Audit report to be sent to certain officers and bodies as Government may direct.—As soon as practicable after the completion of the audit, but not later than three months thereafter, the Auditor shall prepare a report on the accounts audited and examined and shall send such report to the municipal council concerned and to the 1[Director of Municipal Administration]1 and the Controller, State Accounts Department. 1 Substituted by Act 31 of 2003 w.e.f. 20.8.2003. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 295. Municipal council to remedy defects: Procedure to be followed after report of the Auditor under section 293.—(1) On receipt of a report under section 293, the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer shall remedy any defects or irregularities which may have been pointed out in the report, and shall, within two months of the receipt of the report, place the report, together with a statement of the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon and an explanation in regard thereto before a meeting of the municipal council. He shall also, within three months of the receipt of the report, send to the Controller, State Accounts Department, intimation of his having remedied the defects or irregularities, if any, pointed out in the report, or shall, within the said period, supply the Controller, State Accounts Department, any further explanation in regard to such defects or irregularities as the municipal council may wish to give. (2) On receipt of such intimation or explanation the Controller, State Accounts Department may, in respect of all or any of the matters discussed in the report,- (a) accept the intimation or explanation given by the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer and withdraw the objection, or (b) direct that the matter be re-investigated at the next audit or at any earlier date, or (c) hold that the defects or irregularities pointed out in the report or any of them have not been removed or remedied. (3) The Controller, State Accounts Department, shall send a report of his decision to the 1[Director of Municipal Administration]1 within one month of the date of the receipt by him of the intimation or explanation of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer referred to in sub- section (1) or in the event of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer failing to give such intimation or explanation, on the expiry of the period of three months mentioned in the said sub-section, and shall forward a copy of such report to the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer. If the Controller, State Accounts Department, holds that any defects or irregularities have not been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 removed or remedied he shall state in the report whether, in his opinion, the defects or irregularities can be regularised and, if so, by what method: and if they do not admit of being regularised, whether they can be condoned, and, if so, by what authority. He shall also state whether the amounts to which the defects or irregularities relate should, in his opinion, be surcharged or charged. 1 Substituted by Act 31 of 2003 w.e.f. 20.8.2003. (4) The municipal council concerned shall include in its next administration report, such portions of the report under section 293 as deal with defects and irregularities failing under clause (c) of sub-section (2), together with the explanation thereof, if any, given under sub-section (1) and the final report of the Controller, State Accounts Department thereon under sub-section (3). Such report of defects and irregularities and explanation shall be open to the inspection of the public at the office of the municipal council for a period of one month from the date of their receipt. (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude the Controller, State Accounts Department, at any time from bringing to the notice of the 1[Director of Municipal Administration]1, for such action as the 1[Director of Municipal Administration]1 may consider necessary, any information which appears to him to support a presumption of criminal misappropriation or fraud or which in his opinion deserves special attention or immediate investigation. 1 Substituted by Act 31 of 2003 w.e.f. 20.8.2003. 2[1[(6) The Controller, State Accounts Department shall send consolidated Annual Audit Report pertaining to all City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats to the State Government for being placed before both Houses of the State Legislature. (7) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India shall send the Annual Technical Inspection Report under sub-section (1) of Section 290 to the State Government for being placed before both Houses of the State Legislature.]1]2. 1.Inserted by Act 24 of 2011 w.e.f. 10.06.2011. 2. Substituted by Act 20 of 2012 w.e.f. 14.03.2012.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 9. Section 293 deals with an Audit report. Section 294 mandates, what the Audit report should contain. Section 295 mandates procedure to be followed after the report of the auditor is submitted under Sections 293 and 294 of the Act, as the case would be. The auditor has submitted his report in the case at hand. The procedure stipulated is as obtaining in sub-section (2) of Section 295 of the Act, to take the report to its logical conclusion, by submission of explanation by the Chief Officer and remedying the defects or in the irregularities that have been pointed out in the report. This has not been done. The Chief Officer on receipt of the report has straightaway instituted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner by drawing up charges against him, on the basis of the audit objections. Therefore there appears to be a procedural aberration in the case at hand, as the petitioner cannot straightaway be made subject matter of departmental inquiry, unless Section 295 of the Act, stands complied. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2412 WP No. 101020 of 2021 10. In that light, owing to the aforesaid procedural aberration, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, reserving liberty to the State to initiate, a departmental enquiry, if needed, strictly inconsonance with law, after following with due process of law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent bearing in No.263371/rJAJ/ 139/AUDIT/2018-29 dated:12.02.2021 vide Annexure-K stands quashed (iii) The liberty is reserved to the State to comply with Section 295 of the Act and the result of compliance be regulated by the State in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3