ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned penalty of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in 3rd respondent-

Directorate of Municipal Administration and was deputed to respondent No.2-BBMP. One Smt. Usha appears to have given a representation to Lokayukta alleging that the present petitioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer(AEE) inspite of compliant are found to have committed dereliction of duty and have not taken appropriate action against the adjoining owner who is constructing the residential house in contravention of the interim order granted by the civil Court.

3. The Additional Registrar of Enquiries issued article of charges. The petitioner in response to the charges filed written statement and contested the proceedings. The enquiry Officer having recorded the statements of the complainant and also the statement of AEE proceeded to answer the charges framed against the petitioner and the AEE. The enquiry Officer referring to the materials on record held that petitioner and the AEE are guilty of not taking action to remove the encroached portion of the building bearing No.14, 6th Cross, Ganganagar, Bengaluru. Consequently, a report was submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short “K.L. Act”) to Respondent No.1. On receipt of the said report, respondent No.1 has inflicted the impugned penalty on petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned penalty, the petitioner who is the Junior Engineer is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. On examining the material on record, this Court would find that one Smt. Usha lodged a complaint on 28.10.2015 alleging that the adjoining owner is putting up construction in violation of the building bye-laws and sanction plan. From Para 20 of the enquiry report, it is clearly evident that AEE visited the spot and prepared a rough sketch in presence of both the parties. Records also reveal that the provisional order was passed on 3.12.2012 and the said provisional order was confirmed on

24.12.2012.

6. The short question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether penalty could have been inflicted on the petitioner, who is admittedly a junior engineer, when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner.

7. The grievance of the complainant was that though provisional order was confirmed by passing an order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976 (for short “KMC Act”), the petitioner who is a Junior Engineer and the AEE have not taken further course of action by demolishing the encroached portion which was found to be in gross violation of the building bye-laws. 8. If these significant details are looked into, then, this Court is of the view that the penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is not only perverse but the same is in absence of cogent material to substantiate the role of the petitioner who is found to be only a Junior Engineer. Unless the Junior Engineer has the power to proceed further after confirmation of the provisional order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of dereliction of duty for not taking any action. Post confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, it is the Executive Engineer who will pass a precipitative order under Section 462 of the KMC Act. The further course of action as contemplated under Section 462 of the KMC Act admittedly does not fall within the domain of the petitioner who happens to be a Junior Engineer.

8. It would be useful for this Court to cull out paragraph (3) of the report under Section 12(3) of the K.L.

Act, which reads as under:

“You DGO No.1-M.S. Biradar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Hebbal Sub-divi