The court ruled that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were misconceived as he had obtained the necessary permission from the competent authority, affirming the maintainability of the writ petition.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing to quash the charge memo dated 15.02.2018 marked at Annexure - A issued by 1^st respondent- Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department.

2. Petitioner is working as Group 'D' employee in Mandya Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The impugned charge memo is issued on the premise that petitioner has violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) and 3(2) (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966' for short). The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2018 before initiating the disciplinary enquiry. The annexure to the show cause notice would allege that the petitioner has purchased a site in a residential layout in Mandya without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority.

3. Petitioner is before this Court on the premise that he has taken necessary permission from the competent authority and this being the position, the disciplinary enquiry is initiated without any basis.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he is relying on the documents issued by 2^nd respondent - authority, as such there are no disputed question of facts and elaborate inquiry is not warranted in this case and would urge that the petition is maintainable.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for 1^st respondent raised a preliminary objection on the premise that the petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has to question the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also raise a contention that the petition involves disputed questions of facts and the petitioner has to face the enquiry and has to establish his contention in the disciplinary enquiry, as such, the present petition is not maintainable.

6. Admittedly, petitioner is an employee of MUDA, which is a local body and the employees of the said authority are not the Government employees. Therefore, petition is maintainable. The impugned charge memo is issued on the premise that petitioner has violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) and 3 (2)(i) and (ii) of the Rules, 1966.

7. This Court has perused the records and it is noticed that entire case of the petitioner is based on the permission granted by 2^nd respondent. The only question before this Court is, "Whether second respondent who has issued the permission to the petitioner to purchase the property is the competent authority or not?"

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Annexure - D dated 22.08.2009. As can be seen from the said letter issued by 2^nd respondent, the Commissioner of 2^nd respondent has granted permission to the petitioner to purchase the site by availing loan from nationalised bank. It is also noticed that in the said letter granting permission, a reference has been made to the applications dated 08.07.2009 and 28.07.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking permission. It is further relevant to note that the petitioner has produced the application dated 28.07.2009 seeking permission to purchase the property.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also invite the attention of this Court to the letter dated 02.06.2009 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Urban Development Department on behalf of the Secretary to Urban Development Department. The said letter is addressed to the Commissioner of MUDA. The said letter at Annexure - B would reveal that the power to allot the site is with the authority under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules , 1991 (for short 'Rules, 1991')

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge referring to Rule 3 of Rules, 1991 that the power to allot site is with the Urban Development Authority. There is no dispute over the fact that the site has been allotted to the petitioner by the Urban Development Authority.

11. Learned HCGP supporting the impugned charge memo would contend that these as