S.S. HERALGI Vs. UPA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the report of the Lokayukta and also the orders of the Government of Karnataka dated 24.05 .2017 wherein the writ petitioner was directed to face the departmental inquiry.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as a junior engineer on compassionate grounds in Vijayapura Municipality on 20.12.1991. After his promotion as an Assistant Executive Engineer, he was posted to Nippani Municipality and thereafter to Vijayapura Municipality in the year 2004. Presently, the petitioner is working in the of fice of the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation/North Karnataka Urban Sector Ins frastructure Project Cell. In the year 2012-13 certain works were carried out on the release of State Finance Fund, particularly with regard to asphalting of road of Ward No .21, Vivek Nagar, East, Vijayapura. The Deputy Commissioner of the district, on 21.11.2012 for execution of the aforesaid work, approved the action plan as per Annexure-A. Tender was called for and allotment of work was done strictly in terms of the Rules governing the implementation of the project with approval of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-B. That, at that relevant time , one Smt. Parimala Chimmalagi, working in the said Municipality, as a junior engineer , was to implement the work of asphalting and the petitioner was required to supervise the same and to check the measurements with regard to the execution of the work. The writ petitioner contends that the said work was commenced on 25.11.2013 and completed on 30.01.2014 . Measurement of the road was done and necessary office note sheet and running bills were prepared and copies of the same along with third party report were issued as per Annexures-C , C1 to C18. It is further contended that 4th respondent, a busy body in Vijayapura town, filed a complaint alleging irregularity in carrying out asphalting o f road work. On the basis of the said complaint filed by 4th respondent, the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, to the second respondent directing to hold an inquiry. A joint inspection was held. On the basis of the said joint inspection report, the second respondent submitted a report for dropping the proceedings against the junior engineer who had executed the work. A copy of the said report is at Annexure-G. On the basis of the very same allegations, respondent No.2 directed an inquiry against the petitioner herein as per Annexure 'H' . Accordingly, Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner as per Annexure-J. Aggrieved by the a foresaid order vide Annexure-H and framing of Articles of charge by 3 rd respondent vide Annexure-J, the writ petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned Annexures on the following grounds: As per the Joint Inspection report submitted at Annexure-F, the allegation by the complainant was found to be false and incorrect. It was the junior engineer , who was responsible for execution of work. As the petitioner was only a supervisory authority, the inquiry against him should have been dropped. The Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta, without issuing notice or calling for an explanation, had proceeded to find out a new ground and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to hold Departmental Inquiry on the ground that the Administrative Approval, estimation details and measurement books, running account bills, work order, date of commencement and completion of work etc were not submitted. The said documents which were maintained by the petitioner though were produced, were not taken note off. Therefore , the report submitted by the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta is bad in law. That the impugned order passed by the Government is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned Annexures- E, H and J.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.