SHAMBULINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed, challenging order dated 03rd February, 2020 passed in Application No.2586 of 2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), whereunder the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The brief facts, for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are, that the petitioner was initially appointed as a typist in the Secretariat Services on 05th July, 1985 and thereafter, he was promoted as Under Secretary on 05th May, 2012 and as Deputy Secretary on 20th January, 2016. The petitioner, while working as Under Secretary, by order dated 28th March, 2014 was deputed as Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk and he was working as Tahsildar at Kunigal Taluk between 29th March, 2014 and 08th September, 2015. It is further stated, that the petitioner while so working as Tahsildar at Kunigal Taluk, had passed an order dated 03rd September, 2015 (Annexure-A1) for effecting khata in favour of one T.M. Puttaraju, in respect of land bearing survey No.14/2 measuring an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas of Tarikere village, under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is the case of the petitioner that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of change of khata made by him, one Sri T.M. Ramanna (complainant) filed a complaint with the second respondent herein alleging that the petitioner and other officers of the Tahsildar, Kunigal had taken bribe from Sri T.M. Puttaraju and accordingly, effected khata in respect of the aforementioned land. The second respondent had forwarded the copy of the complaint to the petitioner and sought his explanation, and pursuant to same, petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the same stating that the allegations made against him are false and baseless. He further stated that the said order of change of khata in favour of Sri T.M. Puttaraju in respect of the aforementioned land was a quasi-judicial order under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and if at all the complainant was aggrieved by the same, he ought to have preferred an appeal before the competent authority under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In view of the said complaint lodged by Sri T.M. Ramanna against the petitioner before the second respondent herein, the Upa- Lokayukta, after considering the reply made by the petitioner, submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the first respondent-Government on 14th June, 2017 (Annexure-A4). The said report was communicated to the petitioner by the first respondent, to which, the petitioner has submitted reply during December, 2017. It was further stated by the petitioner that the first respondent herein, without considering the reply made by the petitioner, passed the order dated 17th March, 2018 (Annexure-A7) entrusting Departmental Enquiry to the second respondent against the petitioner by exercising power under Article 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'). It is also averred in the writ petition that T.M. Ramanna-complainant has filed suit in OS No.8 of 2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, seeking a judgment and decree of declaration in respect of the suit schedule property which includes the subject matter of the land in question, and also the plaintiff-Sri T.M. Ramanna filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking relief of temporary injunction. The competent Court rejected the said interlocutory application made by Sri T.M. Ramanna and others on 03rd March, 2018. In that view of the matter, the petitioner presented Application No.2586 of 2018 before the Tribunal, challenging order dated 17th March, 2018 (Annexure-A7) passed by the first respondent herein. The Tribunal, after considering the factual aspects of the case on merits, by its order dated 03rd February, 2020, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition.

(3.) We have heard Shri Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri T.L. Kiran Kumar learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent-State of Karnataka.