The petitioner, a civil servant (now retired), is

knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the

institution of disciplinary enquiry proceedings by the 3^rd

respondent vide entrustment to the 2^nd respondent/ Upa-

Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter

“CCA Rules”). This is what we have understood from the

incoherent pleadings of the petitioner coupled with the

submission at the Bar.

After service of notice, the Respondents have

entered appearance through their counsel; Respondent Nos.

1 & 2 are represented by their Panel Counsel, Sri. Anil Kale.

Respondent No.3-State is represented by the learned AGA.

Both the Panel Counsel and the AGA vehemently resist the

Writ Petition making submissions in justification of the

impugned proceedings and the reasons on which they have

structured.

- 4 -

FOUNDATIONAL FACTS IN BRIEF:

(a) Petitioner during the relevant period was working as the

Commissioner (Grade II), City Municipal Council, Karwar.

The office held by him is coveted and it is under the services

of the State. One Mr. Venkata Dutta Naik had sent a

representation dated 14.12.2015, about the alleged illegal

construction of a building undertaken by one Mr. Grisih

Krishna Naik,

sans Sanctioned plan and a Building

Permission

under

the

provisions

of

the

Karnataka

Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter 1964 Act).

(b) Petitioner being the commissioner of the local body, had

sent a restraint notice dated 02.01.2016 restraining further

construction. However, despite long lapse of time, i.e., till

November 2016, nothing was done by the petitioner to

demolish the unauthorised structure. This resulted into a

complaint being filed with the first respondent Upa

Lokayukta, who having investigated the same submitted to

the Government a report under section 12(3) of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The Government having

- 5 -

accepted the recommendation made in the report decided to

hold a disciplinary inquiry and entrusted the same to the

First Respondent under 14A of the CCA Rules. Accordingly,

the Second Respondent Additional Registar of the Lokayukta

Office has issued the Articles of Charge dated 06.04.2017

imputing three misconducts. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is

grieving before this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, we decline

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons;

a)

Petitioner was holding the office of Commissioner

during the relevant period, he had received a representation

by a citizen alleging illegal construction and that petitioner

had issued a restraint notice to the constructor, are not in

dispute. However, why petitioner failed to take coercive

action in respect of illegal construction despite statutory

empowerment and a complaint by the aggrieved needs to be

examined in the disciplinary inquiry. It is not that the inquiry

is ordered abruptly and without any substance. The Upa

- 6 -

Lokayukta who happens to be a former Judge of this Court

has got the matter investigated into and submitted the

report recommending for an inquiry. The Government

having

considered

the

same,

has

accepted

the

recommendation and decided to cause a disciplinary inquiry

at the hands of the Upa Lokayukta. Thus, there is prima

facie material justifying the institution of disciplinary

proceedings. Despite vehement submission by the learned

counsel Mr. J.S Shetty, no case is prima facie made out.

b)

There is a lot of force in the vehement contention

of the learned AGA, Mr. Hiregoudar that the 1984 Act is

enacted to usher in a Welfare State and to give a

responsible governance; it provides for the fixation of

administrative accountability on the holders of the public

power for commission or omission which may constitute a

misconduct. High authorities like the Upa Lokayukta and the

Government having considered the matter found a prima

facie case warranting a disciplinary action. The delinquent