Karnataka High Court
Sri. Maniyana Purushotham vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16272
WP No. 4687 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4687 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANIYANA PURUSHOTHAM,
S/O LATE M.OBAYYA GOWDA,
AGED AOBUT 58 YEARS,
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GRAM PANCHAYAT, PANJA, SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-574239.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. X.M.JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ
& RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
Digitally M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
signed by
KIRAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH 2. D.K.ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANGALURU-575 006.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
D.K. ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANGALURU-575 006.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SULLIA,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 239
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.A.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16272
WP No. 4687 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CAUTION NOTICE DATED 16.02.2021 ISSUED BY
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SULLIA VIDE
ANNEXURE-L, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Panja Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, and is an off-shoot of the allegations, which has resulted in the termination of the petitioner in W.P. No.1273 of 2022, which has been dismissed by this Court today by a separate order.
2. On 19.06.2019, the Assistant Director of Gram Panchayat, Sullia, addressed a communication to the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Sullia to conduct a special audit for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in respect of Enmur Grama Panchayat.
3. On 18.10.2019, an audit report for the years 2016- 17 to 2018-19 was submitted by the Accounts officer that -3- NC: 2024:KHC:16272 WP No. 4687 of 2022 out of the total amount collected for the said years to the tune of Rs.13,66,184.40, an amount of Rs.4,88,253.80 had not been deposited and the Chief Executive Officer, had, in turn, addressed a communication dated 24.12.2019 to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Sullia to recover a sum of Rs.8,16,091.25 from the petitioner and a sum of Rs.61,839.45 from Sri.Seetharam, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, Enmuru.
4. In turn, the Taluk Panchayat, Sullia addressed a communication to the petitioner to deposit the said sum within a period of one month and report the same to the Zilla Panchayat.
5. On 09.01.2020, the petitioner preferred an appeal requesting the withdrawal of the letter dated 02.01.2020 wherein he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.8,16,091/- within a month, failing which criminal proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:16272 WP No. 4687 of 2022
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has filed the present writ petition.
7. It may be pertinent to state here that pursuant to this caution notice, the petitioner has also been issued with an intimation along with a charge-sheet dated 30.03.2022.
8. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition and ordering issuance of notice to the respondents, granted an interim order in the following terms:
"KSDJ:
31.03.2022 Learned AGA is requested to accept notice for respondent No.1.
Sri. A.K.Vasanth, learned Panel Counsel is requested to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Stay of impugned order subject to petitioner depositing with Respondent No.4- Taluk Panchayat, a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Eight Thousand) only within two weeks, failing which, stay stands vacated on its own and the respondents can proceed with the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The deposit shall not cause any aspersion on the petitioner and that the petition will be heard & decided disregarding the deposit." -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:16272 WP No. 4687 of 2022
9. In compliance of said order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- with respondent No.4 and has also filed the acknowledgement for having paid the said sum.
10. In view of the fact that the petitioner has complied with the interim order and, as a consequence, has also complied with the demand made in the impugned notice, at least partially, the prayers made in the writ petition would not really survive for consideration.
11. Since the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner has also been produced by the respondents, as per Annexure 'R8', it is obvious that the deposit made by the petitioner would be subject to the ultimate result of the proceedings that had been lodged against the petitioner.
12. If the petitioner is exonerated of the charges, it is needless to state that the said amount would have to be refunded and on the other hand, if the petitioner is found guilty and an order of recovery is made, the same shall be -6- NC: 2024:KHC:16272 WP No. 4687 of 2022 appropriated against the ultimate demand that would be made against him.
13. It is open for the petitioner to put forth all contentions, including the averment that the misappropriation has not been committed by him and that some other employees had committed the misappropriation and they had also admitted their guilt.
14. In view of the above findings, no further orders would be required on the present writ petition and the petition is therefore disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85