1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT PETITION NO.4954/2018 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN

THE REGISTRAR,

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,

M.S.BUILDINGS,

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,

BENGALURU 560 001.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI V.S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,

VIKASASOUDHA

BENGALURU 560 001.

2.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

VIKASASOUDHA

BENGALURU 560 001.

3.

SRI RAVINDRANATH TALAVADE

S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO TALAVADE

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

BDA NORTH SUB DIVISION,

BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENTS

2

(BY SRI J.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3,

SRI B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

DATED 15.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1062/2017 VIDE

ANEX.A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present

petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2017

passed in Application No.1062/2017 (Ravindranath Talavade

v. The State of Karnataka and others) by the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.

2.

The facts of the case reveal that a charge sheet

was issued on 17.1.2017 to respondent No.3 who was

working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the services of

the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter

referred to as the BBMP) on the ground that one

T.K.Venkatesh gave a complaint on 20.6.2014 in respect of

some unauthorized construction and in spite of the fact that

an order was passed holding the construction as illegal

3

construction, respondent No.3 did not take any action in

demolishing the building in question.

3.

Various grounds were raised before the Tribunal

by respondent No.3 and it was categorically stated and

pleaded that the building in construction was constructed in

the year 1993-94 with proper permission of the Grama

Panchayath, Sarakki and there was certain deviation from

the sanctioned plan. However, under a Scheme known as

Akrama Sakrama, which was introduced in the year 2009, an

order was passed regularizing the construction and therefore,

the building was not demolished.

4.

The Tribunal, after taking into account the fact

that the building was regularized and therefore, it could not

have been demolished by respondent No.3, has quashed the

charge sheet.

5.

Another important aspect of the case is that the

Tribunal has also held that the complainant was having a

remedy of appeal, revision or review and the matter should

not have been investigated by the Lokayuktha keeping in

view Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The

Tribunal in paragraphs 10 to 15 has held as under;

4

<10. The charge against the Applicant is that while he

was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Ward

No.97, Uttarahalli Sub-Division, BBMP, though he

issued provisional order and confirmation order of

demolition in respect of illegal construction made by

one Shivegowda in property bearing No.47, 3^rd Cross,

Doctors Colony, Bangalore, he did not take further

action and failed to maintain absolute integrity and

devotion to duty and hence he has acted in a manner

unbecoming of a Government servant and committed

misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

11. The defence of the Applicant during inquiry was

that the building in question had been constructed

about 20 years back by obtaining approval to plan

from Sarakki Gram Panchayath and that the owner of

the building had supplied sketch to hi