Bowring wall collapse: Karnataka High Court quashes suspension of executive engineer

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has set aside the suspension of an executive engineer from the Health and Family Welfare Department in connection with the Bowring Hospital wall collapse that left seven people dead and nine injured on April 29.

However, a vacation division bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice K Manmadha Rao reserved liberty for the authorities to initiate action against the executive engineer, MB Nagaraj, after the submission of inquiry reports.

On May 1, the state government suspended Nagaraj under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules for alleged dereliction of duty. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had earlier rejected his plea seeking a stay on the suspension order.

Nagaraj later approached the high court, arguing that clause (d) of Rule 10 (1) requires “prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty” before suspension. He contended that no such material had been placed on record against him.

His counsel submitted that the Public Works Department (PWD) had constituted one committee to conduct a local inspection and another technical committee to examine the incident.

The petitioner argued that he could not have been suspended without reports implicating him and that the suspension order itself did not record any prima facie evidence against him.

Opposing the plea, the government argued that Nagaraj was the executive engineer responsible for the location where the wall collapsed and that this itself constituted prima facie evidence.

The division bench observed that clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 specifically requires prima facie evidence “against him”, indicating that such evidence must relate to the officer proposed to be suspended and not merely to the incident itself.

“In the present case, the event of the falling of the compound wall by itself does not create any prima facie evidence of gross dereliction against the petitioner. Though tragic, it cannot at present be attributed to the petitioner on account of gross dereliction,” the bench observed.

The court further said it was for the committees to submit their reports and determine whether there had been any gross dereliction of duty by the petitioner.

“If that be so, the respondents would be free to exercise their powers under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules. At present, we are of the considered opinion that such powers could not have been exercised without application of mind and recording prima facie evidence of gross dereliction,” the bench said.