SHRI. ANIL GANAPATI SANKOLLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

ORDER The captioned petition is filed questioning the impugned charge memo dated 23.6.2021 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-“P”.

The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in respondent No.2-Board and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.6.2004. Petitioner was later transferred from Karwar to Hubli from 5.4.2006. Respondent No.1 directed acquisition - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 of 400 acres of land in Gamanagatti Village and Sutagatti village. Respondent No.2-Board after securing legal opinion insofar as Gamanagatti lands are concerned proceeded to purchase Survey No.232 measuring 8 acres 27 guntas through the Executive Engineer vide sale deed dated 12.12.2006.

Subsequently, petitioner was transferred from Hubli to Mangaluru. Respondent No.2 has issued the show cause notice on 19.2.2021 alleging that petitioner has not taken steps to change the katha in respect of 8 acres 27 guntas and no appeal is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.327/2006, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on

10.3.2021. In the meantime, the Board having taken a decision to grant promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, merely because a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation in respect of the alleged incident, the DPC proceeded to keep the claim of the petitioner for promotion under - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 the sealed cover, in the DPC held on 25.06.2021. Thereafter, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted on 1.7.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.12331/2021 for a mandamus to consider the representation dated

28.6.2021 and grant him promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned charge memo dated

23.06.2021 has been issued which is served on the petitioner only on 25.8.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the captioned petition has questioned the impugned charge memo on two counts. Firstly, he would point out that the alleged incident is of the year 2006 and the charge memo issued in 2021 relates to sale deed secured by respondent No.2–Housing Board through Executive Engineer. The second limb of argument is that - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 respondent No.2-Housing Board has purchased the land, which is the subject matter of this petition, i.e. the agricultural land bearing Survey No.232 after securing legal opinion. Therefore, he would point out that the charge memo is tainted with malafides as the charge sheet is issued only to deprive the petitioner promotion to which he was legally entitled. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: “1. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. UPENDRA SINGH: (2005) 6 SCC 6356.

2. WRIT PETITION NO.6116/2020(S-KSAT) SRI M.R. VADDAR VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA”

The learned counsel appearing respondent No.2 while countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner was found to be guilty in not properly handling the purchase of Sy.No.232. He would point out that it is on account of petitioner’s laxness the Board erred in purchasing the property which was - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 already the subject matter of litigation. While offering explanation as to why the enquiry is not initiated against the Executive Engineer, he would point out that the Executive Engineer has retired and in terms of the Rules, no action can be initiated against him beyond four years from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The second limb of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the scope of review when a challenge is made to charge memo is very limited and therefore, this is not a fit case where indulgence can be granted to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on following judgment: “UNION OF INDIA V. UPENDRA SINGH (1994) 3 SCC 357”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.

Before I advert to the veracity of the charge memo, it would be useful for this Court to take note of the legal opinion given by panel lawyer/legal advisor. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 His opinion would be relevant. Therefore, I deem it fit to extract the relevant portion, which reads as under:

OPINION through On going the above-referred documents, and on through perusal thereof, I am of the considered opinion that Tippanna 2 Mahadevappa Sio Siddappa Bisgal 3 Shanta W/o Eshwar Muduguri, are owners and possessors of the agricultural land bearing Block No. 232 measuring 08 Acres 27 Guntas sutiated at Gamanagatti Village of Hubli Taluka out of 08 Acres 27 Guntas only 04 Acres 13 Guntas belongs to Smt Shanta w/o Eshwar Muduguri as per form No. 10 dated 29/11/75 as per this the following names are also entered like 1. Mallavva w/o Gangappa Bisgal 2. Mahadevi D/o Gangappa Bisgal 3. Mallavva W/o Basavaraj Kulkarni 4 Basalingavva Mallappa Karigar all are the having a clear and marketable title over the said land they can alienate the said land, hence by taking sale deed (signature) from 1 Tippanna 2 Mahadevappa S/o Siddappa Bisgal 3 Shanta W/ o Eshwar Muduguri 4 Mallavva w/o Gangappa Bisgal 5. Mahadevi D/o Gangappa Bisgal 6. Mallavva W/o Basavaraj Kulkarni 7. Basalingavva Mallappa Karigar The above applicants are ready to dispose the above said property Hence the Karnataka Housing Board may purchase the above said property from the applicant I am herewith returning all the documents referred to me for my legal opinion.

Now, let me examine the charge memo. The same is extracted as under: - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ²æà C¤¯ï.f.¸ÀAPÉƽî, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ f¯Áè w½¹gÀĪÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀUÉ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÀȺÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½, ºÀħ⽠EªÀgÀÄ ºÀħâ½î, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA.232gÀ°è 8-27 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.6.90 ®PÀë zÀgÀzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.59,85,750/- ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ªÀ¸Àw 12-12-2006gÀAzÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÁV Rjâ¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«Ää£À°è 2£Éà UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ ºÀAvÀzÀ ªÀ¸Àw AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ, C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¹zÀ ««zsÀ ªÀUÀðzÀ MlÄÖ 164 ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPɬÄAzÀ vÀqÉ»rAiÀįÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: i. UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA:232gÀ°è 8-27 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ w¥ÀàtÚ vÀAzÉ ¹zÀÝ¥Àà §¸ÀUÀ¯ï, (2) ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ ¹zÀÞ¥Àà ©¸ÀUÀ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (3) ±ÁAvÀªÀé EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgïgÀÄ, ºÀħâ½î EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA: 10gÀAvÉ SÁvÉ DVzÀÄÝ, ¥sÁgÀA 10 gÀ°è 15 ªÀµÀð ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ «¢ü¹zÀÄÝ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ «¢ü¹zÀ 15 ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ 2006gÀ°è d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ RjâUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. ii. ªÀÄAqÀ½ Rjâ¸À¯ÁzÀ d«ÄäUÉ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ°è vÀPÀët PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ii. d«Ää£À SÁvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÁUÀÆå vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C¸À®Ä zÁªÉ 327/2007gÀ rQæ «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀPÀët C¦Ã®Ä zÁR°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. d«ÄãÀÄ Rjâ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ºÀħâ½î PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀ太Àð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°èzÀÝ vÁªÀÅ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ UÀA©üÃgÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CjAiÀÄzÉà ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ªÀ¸Àw AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÁV d«ÄãÀÄ Rjâ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÉÃ, ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯É MzÀV¸ÀzÉà d«ÄãÀÄ Rjâ¸ÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À, PÀvÀðªÀ央ðPÀëvÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀV ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀתÀÅAlĪÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj. EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀjAzÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) 1966gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) £ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV G®èAX¹ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ D¸ÀàzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥À.”

If these significant details are looked into, the issuance of charge memo by respondent No.2 in all probability is an attempt to cover up the lapses that has occurred in 2006. Admittedly, the land in question was a tenanted land and respondent No.2- Housing Board has resolved to purchase the disputed land. The Board has sought opinion from the legal advisor who has opined that the land in question is owned by Thippanna, Mahadevappa and Shanth and there is no defect in title. Placing reliance on the legal opinion given by the legal advisor, respondent No.2- - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 Board through the Executive Engineer has resolved to purchase the land in question in 2006. The material on record also indicates that petitioner was transferred in 2012 from Hubli to Mangaluru.

On examining the charge memo, this Court would find that allegations against the petitioner are that respondent No.2–Board has purchased the tenanted land though there is restriction to sell the property on account of non-alienation clause indicated in Form No.10. The second ground is that petitioner has failed to get the name mutated in the name of the Housing Board pursuant to securing the sale deed. The petitioner is also held accountable for having not taken appropriate action to challenge the decree passed in O.S.No.327/2006.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has brought to the notice of this Court that plaintiff in O.S.No.327/2006 initiated execution proceedings in Ex.No.150/2011. Respondent No.2 filed third party - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC in 2012. If these significant details are taken into consideration, respondent No.2 was in all probability aware of the pendency of the suit atleast in 2012 when respondent No.2 tried to resist the execution petition by filing third party application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.

The material on record clearly gives an indication that the Enquiry Officer after securing opinion from the legal advisor has purchased the property. Probably the fault lies on the lawyer who gave the opinion way back in 2006, which is culled out supra. The then Executive Engineer reposing total trust on the panel lawyer resolved to purchase Survey No.232 of Gamanagatti village and the sale deed is registered on 12.12.2006.

It is essential to recognize the inherent limitations of the petitioner's role as an Assistant Executive Engineer concerning matters related to - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 revenue records. The petitioner did not possess the requisite authority or jurisdiction to effectuate mutations in revenue records. Thus, holding the petitioner accountable for any perceived lapses in this regard would be fundamentally unjust and misplaced. The initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner seems disproportionate and unfairly burdensome. The enquiry fails to acknowledge the contextual constraints and complexities surrounding the land purchase transaction. By targeting the petitioner for actions beyond his control, the Housing Board deflects accountability from its own decision- making process, further exacerbating the injustice faced by the petitioner.

In light of these considerations, there is a pressing need for accountability within the Housing Board's administrative framework. The departmental enquiry should be reevaluated to ensure fairness and transparency, with a focus on addressing systemic - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021 shortcomings rather than scapegoating individual employees. Upholding principles of procedural fairness and equitable treatment is paramount to fostering a culture of accountability and integrity within the organization. The Housing Board's decision purchase land under civil litigation, coupled with the initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, underscores systemic failures within the organization. The petitioner, as an Assistant Executive Engineer, should disproportionate responsibility for matters beyond his authority. Instead, there should be a concerted effort to address systemic deficiencies and promote accountability at all levels of the organization.

For the reasons stated supra, on account of delay and the fact that charges are not supported by any valid reasons and convincing materials to proceed against the petitioner, the same is liable to be quashed. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:12282 WP No. 19680 of 2021