SHARATH CHANDRA LINGAPPA KOSHTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is presented againstthe order of the learned single Judgedismissing the writ petition of the petitioner,who is ah Executive Engineer in theservices of the Hubli-Dharwad MunicipalCorporation. The learned Judge dismissedthe writ petition on the ground thatGovernment was the appointing authorityto the post of Executive Engineer andtherefore the contention of the petitionerthat the Municipal Corporation was theAppointing Authority was inaccurate andtherefore the order of suspension wasmade by the competent authority. Thesecond contention of the petitioner beforethe learned single Judge which was alsorejected was that the suspension orderwas not justified as there was no scope forthe petitioner to tamper with the records.

(2.) We heard the matter on the lastoccasion. As the learned counsel for the Appellant relying on Sections 82 and 84 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'} had contended that the appointing authority tor the post of Executive Engineer was the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Government had no power to place the Appellant under suspension. The learned counsel had produced the order of appointment to show that actually the Commissioner appointed the Appellant. In the circumstances, we directed issue of notice to the learned counsel for the Corporation and the State.

(3.) Sri N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate for the State and Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned counsel for the Corporation, have invited our attention to Rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977. It reads :