BHARATHI S. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Sri. M.S.Bhagawath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for her that, the petitioner was initially appointed on 20/1/2004 as Assistant Engineer in the Respondent No.2- Organization i.e., Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ( 'BBMP' in short). On 14/2/2008 she was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. On 26/11/2010 while working as incharge Executive Engineer at Mahadevapura, she was regularly promoted to the post of Executive Engineer.

(3.) According to Mr. Bhagawath, the said property comes under the purview of the office of the Sub-Reigstrar, Chitradurga. It is his submission that, pursuant to the Registered Gift Deed dtd. 23/1/2013, the Katha of Site No.293 is transferred in the name of Sri. Mahesh K., the husband of the petitioner on 28/2/2013. According to Mr. Bhagawath, Smt. Lalithamma, the mother of the petitioner filed OS No.102/2013 before the Civil Court in Chitradurga, disputing the Registered Gift Deed dtd. 23/1/2013 and sought to cancel the Gift Deed dtd. 23/1/2013 and for Permanent Injunction restraining the petitioner and her husband, their agents, servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property therein. On 4/1/2014, the husband of the petitioner, the Defendant No.1 therein filed his written statement in the OS No.102/2013 contending that the suit preferred by the mother of the petitioner is false, frivolous and vexatious and prayed for the dismissal of the same. When the things stood thus, Smt. B. Umadevi was impleaded as Defendant No.2 on the said suit. She filed a written statement and counter-claim contending that the property in dispute does not belong to either the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 therein and she is the absolute owner of the said property. She informs that the suit is still pending before the concerned Trial Court. On 3/5/2016, Smt. B. Umadevi filed a complaint before the 3rd Respondent-the Karnataka Lokayuktha with respect to the same matter against the petitioner. On 18/11/2016, an Additional complaint was made to the 3rd Respondent-Karnataka Lokayuktha reiterating the same. On 15/6/2018, the Deputy Registrar of Enquiries-05 attached to the 3rd respondent issued a Memorandum to the petitioner calling upon her to reply to the complaint given against her. On 16/7/2018, the petitioner replied to the said complaint contending that she has not committed any wrong with respect to effecting Katha in the name of her husband Sri. K. Mahesh, as she followed the due procedure for the same and the OS No.102/2013 is pending before the Civil Court and therefore, no enquiry can be made against her. On 20/4/2021, the 3rd respondent issued a report under Sec. 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 (in short, Act of 1984) stating that the reply provided by the petitioner is not satisfactory and therefore, sought to entrust the matter of holding Departmental Enquiry to the 3rd respondent invoking Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 ( in short, Rules 1957). Upon receipt of the 12(3) report, the Respondent No.1 passed an order entrusting the matter of holding departmental enquiry to the 3rd Respondent invoking Rule 14-A. It is in pursuance to the said entrustment, the Upa-Lokayuktha appointed Additional Registrar of Enquiries -10 as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. On 23/3/2022, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-10 issued Articles of Charge to the petitioner, whereunder the sole charge against the petitioner is that, when the petitioner was working as Commissioner of Chitradurga Municipal Council, she has misused her powers and altered the details in the Property Tax Register by rounding off the Site No.294 as Site No.293, which stands in the name of her mother Smt. Lalithamma and has illegally tampered the property documents and has ensured a Gift Deed is executed transferring the said property in the name of her husband Sri. Mahesh K. By doing so, the DGO ie., the petitioner herein has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act, which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (in short, KCS Rules 1966). On 20/40/2024, the Enquiry Officer, after the completion of the evidence, has submitted the report holding the charge against the petitioner as proved. On 25/4/2024, based on the enquiry report dtd. 20/4/2024, the Respondent No.3 issued the recommendation to Respondent No.1 to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on the delinquent officer/petitioner. On 10/6/2024, upon receipt of the Enquiry Report and recommendation, the Respondent No.1 issued the second show cause notice to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit reply to second show cause notice, within 15 days from the receipt of notice. After receiving the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted her representation to the same, seeking 45 days time to submit her reply to the second show cause notice.