BBMP engineer relieved as Karnataka High Court bins Upalokayukta enquiry report for dereliction of duty

The division bench noted that the cost of demolition had to be approved by the higher authorities and nothing on record suggested that the higher authority, had approved the costs.

Bengaluru: The high court has quashed the Upalokayukta enquiry report and punishment withholding four increments with cumulative effect against an engineer with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for dereliction of duty.

A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and Venkatesh Naik allowed the petition filed by T C Geetha, who was Assistant Executive Engineer with BBMP in 2014, who challenged the proceedings initiated against her for not carrying out the demolition of an unauthorized construction despite the order of demolition.

The petitioner was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer at Maruthi Seva Nagar when she received a complaint by Susheelamma alleging that her brother Chandrashekar had carried out an unauthorised construction at the property situated at Sathyamurthy Road at Lingarajapuram in Kammanahalli. The petition stated that the siblings were involved in civil disputes and in the complaint Susheelamma alleged that her brother put up the construction without the sanctioned building plans by the BBMP.

Subsequently, Susheelamma filed a complaint with the Lokayukta alleging that even after passing confirmation order under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, no further action was taken by the BBMP. Upon an enquiry, the Upalokayukta charged Geetha and Vinay, who was the Assistant Engineer, for dereliction of duty and also guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules. Based on the recommendation of the Upalokayukta, the state government withheld four increments.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that she had issued notice to Chandrashekar and passed a confirmation order after hearing him. It was further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a cost of the proposed demolition for approval to her senior, the Executive Engineer. However, since the cost for demolition was not approved, the demolition could not be carried out.

On the other hand, Special counsel appearing for Upalokayukta submitted that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to see that no unauthorised construction is carried out in her jurisdiction. It was further contended that the demolition had not been carried out despite the order for demolition and therefore the charge was proved on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.

The division bench noted that the cost of demolition had to be approved by the higher authorities and nothing was placed on record to suggest that the higher authority, Executive Engineer, had approved the costs of demolition.

“The petitioner was required to issue show-cause notice for the alleged unauthorised construction to the person i.e. Chandrashekar, which she did and after eliciting a response from Chandrashekar, she passed the order for demolition of unauthorised construction.

However, in absence of the approval of the costs of demolition, the demolition has not been carried out. Hence, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for dereliction of duty, or for not maintaining the absolute integrity and devotion to the duty. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the enquiry report, recommendation made by the Lokayukta and the order dated 30-4-2019 passed by the state government withholding four increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect,” the bench said.