The principle of proportionality was upheld in reviewing disciplinary penalties upon a retired government servant, leading to a modification of the initial penalty based on individual circumstances.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. The applicant in Application No. 1751/2021 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short KSAT), is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the KSAT, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 –Lokayukta, and perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

4. One Sri Krishna Prasad submitted a complaint to the petitioner, who was then working as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Ward No. 91, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, inter alia alleging that his neighbour, Sri.Sukumar, was putting up illegal and unauthorised construction on the adjacent/neighbouring property in violation of sanctioned plans building bye-laws, zoning regulations, etc.

5. In pursuance of the said complaint, the AEE issued a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (for short, the KMC Act), which was followed by a Provisional Order dated 03.11.2012 under Section 321 (1) of the KMC Act. Thereafter, a confirmation order dated 15.11.2012 was passed under Section 321 (3) of the KMC Act which was followed by a demolition order dated 04.01.2013 all of which reported to this Court in W.P. No. 51889 of 2012, which was disposed of on 07.01.2013 permitting the writ petitioner to approach the KSAT by filing an appeal, and the demolition was stayed until disposal of the appeal. In the Meanwhile, Sri. Krishna Prasad filed a complaint on 05.01.2013 before the Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984 , alleging that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as there was complete inaction on the petitioner’s part to take steps to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction.

6. In pursuance of the said complaint, an enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta under Section 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Additional Registrar Enquiry Officer (for short ARE-I) was nominated as the Enquiry Officer.

7. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and contested the proceedings, during which the Lokayukta adduced oral evidence of Sri.Krishna Prasad (PW- 1) and marked documents Exs.P1 to P13. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and submitted defence documents at Ex.D1 to D9.

8. After hearing both sides, the Additional Registrar Enquiry Officer (for short ARE-I) passed an order dated 13.03.2017 holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. It was also recorded that the petitioner had earlier retired from service on 31.05.2014.

9. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by ARE-I, the file was placed before the Upa-Lokayuktha, who proceeded to pass the impugned recommendation as hereunder:

“The Government by its Order dated 14/11/2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against Sri Ibrahim Bhagwan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Delingquent Government Official, for short as 'DGO') and entrusted the Departmental Inquiry to this Institution.

2. This Institution by Nomination Order No.LOK/INQ/14-A/606/2014 dated 21/11/2014 nominated Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, as the Inquiry Officer to frame charges and to conduct Departmental Inquiry against DGO for the alleged charge of misconduct, said to have been committed by him.