(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) v. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. MOHAMMED OBEDULLA SHARIFF, S/O LATE JAFFAR SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BTM LAYOUT, SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 16TH MAIN, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560029.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36626-DB WP No. 24120 of 2021 HC-KAR

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.4209/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Application No.4209/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36626-DB WP No. 24120 of 2021 HC-KAR

3. One B. Nagaraj filed a complaint before the petitioner on

23.01.2025 against respondent No.1 for not taking action with respect to the illegal construction of a building owned by Sri Ramanjaneya. The complaint pertained to the period during which respondent No.1 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, on deputation with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), from 23.12.2014 to 08.12.2015. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 17.01.2017. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was initiated, culminating in the imposition of penalty on 08.07.2019. Questioning the said penalty, respondent No.1 preferred an application before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-11), whereby a penalty of reduction of pay in the time scale of pay by four lower stages with cumulative effect had been imposed.”

Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents failed to take any action to prevent the illegal construction of the building. It is submitted that even after the complaint was filed, no necessary steps - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36626-DB WP No. 24120 of 2021 HC-KAR were taken. Learned counsel contends that the subsequent removal of the unauthorized construction by the building owner cannot constitute a ground for exoneration from enquiry or for setting aside the penalty. He further submits that the petitioner had submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Act and, upon examination, a report under Section 12(4) of the Act, pursuant to which enquiry was ordered and penalty imposed. Hence, it is urged that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record.

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, supports the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is noticed that the complaint was filed against respondent No.1 when he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Vasanthanagar, BBMP, from 23.12.2014 to 08.12.2015, in respect of the alleged illegal construction of a building by Sri Ramanjaneya. In the course of enquiry, the complainant was examined as PW.1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36626-DB WP No. 24120 of 2021 HC-KAR The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the evidence of the complainant (PW.1), held that the charges were proved against respondent No.1. However, the Tribunal noticed that PW.1, in his deposition, admitted that pursuant to issuance of notice, a spot inspection was conducted and the illegal construction was removed by Sri Ramanjaneya, and further, that his grievance stood redressed. The Tribunal also observed that the removal of the unauthorized construction was consequent upon initiation of proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that it was a case of no evidence warranting imposition of penalty against respondent No.1.

Perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly indicates that action was initiated on the complaint relating to unauthorized construction. The owner of the building had regularized the unauthorized construction, regularization was endorsed by the complainant (PW.1) during the enquiry. The report under Section 12(3) of the Act was submitted without adverting to the aforesaid aspects. The only witness examined by the Enquiry Officer was the complainant (PW.1). When the complainant himself categorically stated that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36626-DB WP No. 24120 of 2021 HC-KAR there was no subsisting violation and that the owner had rectified the irregularities in the construction, the petitioner erred in holding that the charge against respondent No.1 stood proved. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that it was a case of no evidence, particularly in the absence of any contrary material produced by the complainant. 8 In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7