Disciplinary proceedings against government employees require strict adherence to established guidelines on fund management; deviations are liable to be penalized as misconduct.

ORDER :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. WP.No.2198/2023 has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the Enquiry Report dated 26.07.2022 submitted by the Additional Registrar, Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayukta, in respect of the alleged misconduct against the petitioner and the recommendation dated 28.07.2022 submitted by respondent No.3-Upa Lokayukta for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and another delinquent government official.

2. The petitioner also challenged the final punishment order dated 23.12.2022 passed by respondent No.5, the Managing Director and Enquiry Authority, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, Bangalore.

3. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had got the government funds deposited in his personal account and the petitioner had withdrawn the said amount through seSSSlf-drawn cheques. In the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.3 - Upa Lokayukta recommended for imposing penalty on the petitioner and consequently the order of punishment has been passed whereby there is an order to withhold 10% of the retirement benefits of the petitioner who is to retire at the time of imposing the penalty. This court has dealt with the same enquiry report and similar punishment awarded to other delinquent DGO-2, Smt. Lakshmi.S.

4. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 21.08.2025 in WP.No.2160/2023 (GM-KLA), are extracted herein below:

"10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. P.P.Hegde, submits that the personal accounts were opened as per the circular dated 25.07.2015. He further submitted that no audit objections were raised at any point of time and as per the report, the 11 works, which were entrusted to the petitioner, were carried out to the satisfaction of the authorities. When it was permitted to open the personal account for depositing the funds released for carrying out the work and no audit objection was raised by the Office of the Principal Account General and the works were carried out to the satisfaction of the higher authorities, the impugned punishment order withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and the 10% interest on the deposit made are wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.

11. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4, as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, have supported the impugned punishment order and submitted that from the report it is evident that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount through self-drawn cheques, which was not permitted. Even if the petitioner and two other delinquent employees were entitled to open the bank account in their name, the Circular did not provide that they should withdraw the amount through self-drawn cheque or through ATM. There is no explanation coming forth from the petitioner or other two delinquent employees regarding withdrawing the amount through self-drawn cheques and through ATM, this itself amounts to misconduct. However, it appears that the petitioner and other two employees have been let off lightly by imposing only minor punishment. Their conduct of withdrawing the various amounts of the Government funds through self-drawn cheques amounts to misappropriation of the Government funds. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of punishment.

12. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the enquiry report as well as the recommendation of the Lokayuktha and the punishment order.

13. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel representing the respondents that even if it is accepted that the petitioners were permitted to open the personal account to deposit the Government money for carrying out the work, there is nothing in the Circular which could have permitted them to withdraw the Government money through their self-draw