The Lokayukta's recommendations are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing the need for accountability while affirming that evidence of misconduct must be substantive for disciplinary action.

ORDER :

R.NATARAJ, J.

The petitioner (Lokayuktha) has challenged an order bearing No.KRIDL/Administrative/CR-Chitradurga (Molakalmuru) /2020-21(EV) dated 18.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, by which it censured the officials and closed the proceedings.

2. (i) A complaint was lodged by one Sri.H.T.Nagareddy with the petitioner on 14.11.2017, stating that a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was sanctioned under the State SCP scheme for the purpose of formation/construction of 5 kilometers tar road from Gaurasamudra SC Colony to Chikkanahalli SC Colony. The said work was entrusted to Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (henceforth referred to as 'KRIDL' for short). Accordingly, the Challakere Division of KRIDL took up the work. The petitioner alleges that Sri H.T.Nagareddy in his complaint, claimed that at the behest of the MLA, the work was not carried out as per the stipulated norms and thereby public funds were misappropriated.

(ii) Based on the said complaint, the petitioner conducted a preliminary enquiry, after respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted their comments, which was not accepted by it. The Upalokayakta submitted a report to respondent No.1 under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayaktha Act, 1984 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1984’ for short) on 14.05.2020, recommending the constitution of a High Powered committee to (i) check the functioning of KRIDL in relation to execution of several works in the State and the quality and fix liability if any on the engineers or officers (ii) To prescribe norms for utilization of funds by the officers of KRIDL and liability / accountability of MD, KRIDL and other Senior officers (iii) To revoke the exemption granted under 4-G of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. It also recommended disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and entrust the enquiry to it under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules, 1957').

(iii) The respondent No.1 constituted a High-Powered Committee as recommended by the petitioner and the High- Powered Committee gave its opinion that due to heavy rain in the area, roads asphalted by KRIDL were damaged and the same was not attributable to the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Thus, it recommended to drop the proceedings against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Consequently, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and censured them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the work was executed between January 2017 to June 2017. However, there was widespread rain in Molakalmuru Taluk between September and October 2017. He therefore contended that between June 2017 to September 2017, the road could not have been damaged. He contends that there is no dispute that the road was damaged and that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had got the same repaired, during the defect liability period. He therefore contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were responsible for laying an inferior quality road, which was washed off within a few months from the date of its laying.

(ii) He thus contends that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were responsible for laying an inferior quality road and hence, the respondent No.1 must have taken a conscious decision before exonerating them. He contends that once a recommendation is made under Section 12 (3) of the Act, 1984, it vests a right in the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the