- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2024 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C P HANUMANTHARAJU S/O C.R. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST-2, SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 82 FEET ROAD, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, NEAR K.L.E. COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.R.GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHARGAV.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B L., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 21.01.2019 No-UPLOK-1/DE/49/2016/ARE-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-4 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BENGALURU SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERN, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Bhargav G., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sanjeev B.L., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 2. The petitioner is employed as Junior Engineer by respondent No.1-Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB). One Mr. Raviraj had filed an application dated 13.11.2024 along with the relevant documents seeking water and sanitary connection to his residence bearing No.4 situated in Sy.No.74/6, Vinayaka Layout, Nayandahalli, Bengaluru. The petitioner submitted a report in favour of Mr. Raviraj recommending to provide water and sanitary connection to the said premises. Thereafter, the Competent Authority i.e., the Assistant Executive Engineer of BWSSB, on 21.11.2014 has passed an order of sanction of water and sanitary connection to the premises of Mr. Raviraj. 3. After the water and sanitary connection was sanctioned, one Smt. Gowramma had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner, in connivance with the Assistant Engineer of BESCOM and the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP, has assisted Mr. Raviraj to get the water and electricity connection illegally - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 when dispute regarding the ownership was pending before the Competent Court and it was Smt. Gowramma who was using accommodation of the premises. 4. The said complaint has been investigated by the Lokayukta and the report dated 04.11.2015 has been submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The Lokayukta has recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and officials of the BESOM and BBMP. 5. In pursuance of the said recommendation made by the Lokayukta, charge memo has been issued to the petitioner containing two charges. The primary charge is that the petitioner, without verifying the documents and without carrying out inspection, has submitted the report in favour of Mr. Raviraj recommending to provide water and sanitary connection to his premises and the petitioner had not shown complete vigilance in discharging his official duties and behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 public servant as per Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1966. 6. After disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner has been inflicted with penalty of the withholding of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 04.10.2023. The petitioner has challenged the said punishment order inflicted upon him in the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that position had already been clarified by the Sanction Authority i.e. Assistant Executive Engineer in his response to the notice dated 03.02.2015 issued to him by the Lokayukta wherein it had been stated that Raviraj had submitted all are relevant documents for sanctioning of water and sanitary connection and after verifying the documents and the report, water and sanitary connection was sanctioned on 21.11.2014. He further submits that the duty of the petitioner was to inspect the site and make - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 a report in respect of the ownership on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicant. Therefore, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to submit a wrong report in favour of Mr. Raviraj. When the sanctioning authority himself had stated that all the documents submitted by Mr. Raviraj were in order, the petitioner was not at fault in submitting the report to sanction water and sanitary connection to Mr. Raviraj in respect of the premises mentioned above. 8. It is further submitted that the Sanctioning Authority had been satisfied with the documents and the report for sanctioning water and sanitary connection for which the petitioner could not be punished and therefore, the punishment order impugned to illegal and liable to be quashed. 9. Mr. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Lokayukta and Mr. Sanjeev B.L., learned counsel appearing for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 respondent No.1 - BWSSB submit that the dispute regarding the ownership was pending in the Competent Court and therefore, the report submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning the water and sanitary connection to Mr. Raviraj was not bona fide. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The petitioner, being Junior Engineer and a person who is required to make recommendation in respect of the application seeking water and sanitary connection is not required to go into the details and dispute of the ownership. When an applicant had submitted all the relevant documents, the report was prepared on the basis of the relevant documents, this would also be evident from the response of the Sanctioning Authority as mentioned above. After inspecting the site, the petitioner had made the recommendation, we find that the report submitted cannot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32578-DB WP No. 190 of 2024 be faulted with. The petitioner is not a Sanctioning Authority. It is the Assistant Executive Engineer of respondent No.1 –BWSSB which is the Sanctioning Authority and he alone is responsible for sanctioning the water and sanitary connection to Mr. Raviraj for which, the petitioner is being punished only for submitting a report. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the punishment order is unjustified and the charges are not proved against the petitioner. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of punishment inflicting two annual increments without cumulative effect. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26