Karnataka High Court
Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 9429 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MURTHY
S/O HALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
CHIEF OFFICER, HANUR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571439
NOW UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT ORDER
R/AT GANANGURU
T M HOSURU POST,
K SHETTIHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571807
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
9TH FLOOR, V V TOWERS
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313
4. PROJECT DIRECTOR
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
D C C COMPOUND
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313
5. TOWN MUNICPAL COUNCIL
HANUR TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI HARISH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN PASSED
BY THE R-1 DTD. 21.03.2024 IN ORDER NO.NaAaEe09 DMK
2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A WHEREIN THE R-1
CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY
BEARING ITS NO.280352/DMA/ENQ 2/MYS/28/2020-20 DTD.
04.12.2023 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND B IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER CONCERNED AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.
04.12.2023 IN ORDER NO. 280352/DMA/ENQ 2/MYS/28/2020-
20 PRODUCED AS ANNX-B AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 12.12.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V. ORDER
The captioned petition is filed feeling aggrieved by
the order of compulsory retirement passed by the
respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B and confirmed by the
respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A.
2. This Court had previously rendered a clear and
positive decision mandating that the petitioner be
reinstated to the position held prior to the impugned
transfer order. Despite this directive, the respondents
initially failed to comply, prompting the petitioner to
initiate contempt proceedings under CCC.No.931/2022. In
response to these proceedings, the respondents eventually
complied with the Court's directive by assigning the
petitioner a posting, leading to the dropping of the
contempt case. However, following their compliance and
the conclusion of the contempt proceedings, the
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner,
as documented in Annexure-S. The notice alleged that the
petitioner had engaged in misconduct by issuing e-khatas
without verifying the existence of necessary conversion
orders and approved layout plans. This move according to
petitioner appears retaliatory, as departmental
proceedings were initiated immediately thereafter,
seemingly as a counterblast to the contempt proceedings.
The petitioner, in response, submitted a comprehensive
explanation, as detailed in Annexure-T, refuting the
allegations. Despite the petitioner's detailed defense, the
Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges were
substantiated, a finding that was subsequently affirmed by
Respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would
contend that the impugned penalty of compulsory
retirement is contrary to Rule 8. Referring to the proviso
and explanation, he would contend that the material on
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
record does not warrant compulsory retirement. Referring
to explanation to proviso, he would vehemently argue and
contend that expression 'Corruption' shall have the same
meaning assigned to the expression 'criminal misconduct
by a public servant' as defined under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He would submit that the charges levelled
against the petitioner nowhere raises the issue relating to
corruption. Learned counsel would contend that the
Disciplinary Authority having initiated departmental
enquiry by issuing a charge memo is required to discharge
its burden by producing relevant documentary evidence by
examining the official witnesses to substantiate the
allegations against the petitioner. On the contrary, he
would submit that petitioner has tendered a detailed
explanation which is evidenced at Annexure-T and there
are details furnished in respect of e-kathas.
4. Referring to explanation offered by the
petitioner, he would point out that the impugned penalty is
not sustainable for lack of substantive evidence to prove
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
that sites in question are part of an unapproved layout.
He would contend that the order of compulsory retirement
is not supported by any credible or admissible evidence.
On the contrary, petitioner's counsel would contend that
petitioner's explanation is supported by official records and
technical approvals which prima-facie demonstrates that
issuance of e-kathas was done in accordance with the
established legal procedure. He would also contend that
the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is tainted
with malafides. The departmental enquiry is initiated as
petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in
CCC.No.931/2022. The respondent had to fall in line and
give a posting to petitioner who was illegally transferred
contrary to transfer guidelines. Referring to these
significant details, he would point out that this
departmental enquiry is vindictive and petitioner is
targeted as hire-ups were subjected to contempt
proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner to further
substantiate that there is no material to proceed against
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
the petitioner, has placed reliance on the memo dated
10.09.2024 to substantiate that the land is converted and
there is a technical approval. Similarly memo dated
27.03.2024 is also relied on to prima facie demonstrate
that there is a technical approval that land is converted
and layout is approved.
5. Per contra, learned AAG reiterating the stand
taken in the statement of objections would contend that
petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. He would
contend that petitioner is guilty of issuing e-kathas without
following procedure as contemplated under law. He would
further submit that in the captioned petition, petitioner has
suppressed material facts since petitioner had committed
fraud and caused huge loss to the State exchequer which
was well within the jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authority to
initiate departmental enquiry. Based on substantial
material, petitioner is rightly inflicted with penalty of
compulsory retirement since e-kathas were issued to
public without completing developmental work as per the
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
terms and conditions laid down by the Town Planning
Authority. He would further point out that e-kathas were
issued without there being approval of the development of
layout. He would point out that e-kathas were issued in
absence of basic infrastructure such as road, water supply,
drainage, street lights, etc. and this has caused huge
financial loss to the municipality/Government.
6. Learned AAG referring to evidence of PW.2 and
cross has further tried to persuade this Court indicating
that petitioner as a Chief Officer after he took charge has
issued in all 27 kathas when these e-kathas are not part of
approved layout plan. He would also point out that
financial loss is determined on the basis of Deputy
Commissioner's report.
7. At this juncture, when this Court queried
learned AAG as to whether this report prepared by the
Deputy Commissioner is part of departmental enquiry, he
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
fairly concedes that this is not part of departmental
enquiry and it is not served on the petitioner.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents.
9. The initiation of Disciplinary action has a
background history, which has led to the initiation of
present disciplinary action against the petitioner. Petitioner
was transferred to Town Municipal council, Hannur Town
vide order dated 18.07.2019. However, petitioner was
again transferred without posting.
10. Petitioner was compelled to knock the doors of
this Court in W.P.No.14860/2022. This Court citing the
law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in
Mahiboob Sab vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
(W.P.No.16363/2021), wherein the Division Bench has
held that passing an order of transfer without showing
posting would suffer from legal malafides. Citing a circular
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
dated 27.03.2017, the Co-ordinate Bench further held that
reasons must be recorded in writing for not showing
posting to any government servant and such reasons must
be compelling administrative reasons. Co-ordinate Bench
at para-4 of the writ petition cited supra held that none of
the procedures are followed while transferring petitioner
and no reasons were assigned for the transfer without
showing place of posting. It would be useful for this Court
to cull out relevant paras which reads as under:
"4. Admittedly, in the present case, none of the
procedures are followed. Despite the observations
by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Arun
Prasad's case (supra) and also the Government
Circulars referred to above, time and again orders
of transfer are being passed without showing
places for posting. In terms of the order in M.Arun
Prasad's case (supra), vacancy will not arise until
an employee in whose place another employee has
been transferred, is shown a place of posting. The
Government to ensure that such instances should
not repeat and strict compliance of Circular dated
27.03.2017 as well as directions of the Division
Bench of this Court in M.Arun Prasad's case
(supra).
5. It is also necessary to note that transfer is made
in the month of December. Even as per the records
submitted by the Government, as per note on
01.10.2021 it is observed that if transfers are
made after the period of general transfers, no
'request for transfers should be entertained or
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
orders made unless there is a vacant place. In the
present case, as stated earlier, there was no
vacant place while considering the representation
of the respondent No.6 to be transferred and
posted in the place of the petitioner. It is also
noticed that the case of respondent No.6 is on the
basis of the letter of the Member of the Legislative
Assembly. Nevertheless, procedure requires to be
followed.
6. The delay in fiiing is explained by way of earlier
proceedings instituted by the petitioner before this
Court in W.P.No.3955/2022 (S-RES) disposed of
on 22.02.2022 and subsequently, in Application.
No.1439/2022 disposed of on 12.07.2022.
7. Accordingly, on two grounds i.e., not showing
an order of posting for a period of more than six
[6] months and on the ground that no transfer
must be made except to a vacant post after the
period of general transfers, while noticing that the
transfer is made in December 2021 as noticed in
the proceedings of transfer, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 at
Annexure A is set aside. The parties are directed to
be placed in the position prior to the impugned
order.
It is only expected that the State will ensure strict
compliance with its own. Circular of 27.03.2017 as
well as directions of the Division Bench passed in
M.Arun Prasad's case (supra) and the observations
in Mahiboob Sab's case (supra)."
11. This Court positively held that petitioner needs
to be restored to position prior to impugned transfer order.
The respondents failed to comply the order passed by Co-
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
ordinate Bench and contempt proceedings were initiated in
CCC.No.931/2022. Contempt proceedings were dropped
as respondents complied and gave a posting to petitioner.
Respondents having faced contempt proceedings issued
show cause notice as per Annexure-S alleging that
petitioner is guilty of issuing e-khata without checking if
there is conversion order and layout plan.
12. The petitioner in his explanation to Annexure-S
has furnished details of all the sites to which E-khata is
issued and there is a reference to a conversion order to be
used for residential purpose. In his reply at Annexure-T,
he has stated that Form No.3 is already issued to the
above property owners. He has also stated that neither
Form No.3 nor account registration is done and Form No.3
is not issued where owners have not paid Property tax and
E-khata is only issued to those owners who have paid
property tax and presented the challan to the office.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
13. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the
order passed by the Appellate authority vide Annexure-A.
The relevant paras are extracted as under:
" ೕ ಮೂ , ಮು ಾ ಾ (ಮೂಲ ಹು ೆ ಸಮು ಾಯ
ಸಂಘಟ ಾ ಾ ), ಪಟ ಣ ಪಂ ಾ , ಹನೂರು ಇವರ #ರುದ%ದ
ಆ'ೋಪಗಳ* ಇ+ಾ ಾ # ಾರ,ೆ ಂದ -ಾ.ೕ/ಾ0ರುವ1ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ5ದು
6ಾಗೂ ಸದ ಯವ ಂದ ಸ ಾ ರ ೆ7 ಆ8 ಕ ನಷ ಉಂ;ಾ0ರುವ1ದು # ಾರ,ಾ
ವರ5 ಂದ ಮತು= >+ಾ? ಾ ಗಳ*, ಾಮ'ಾಜನಗರ >+ೆ? ಇವರ
ವರ5 ಂದ 6ಾಗೂ A ೇ ಶಕರು, Cೌ'ಾಡEತ A ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ5ಂದ
ನಡವE/ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂ ೆ : 280352/Fಎಂಎ/ಇಎHಕೂ -
2/ಎಂJೈಎL/28/2020-20, 5 ಾಂಕ: 04.12.2023ರ ಆ ೇಶದM?
ಕಂಡುಬರುತ= ೆ. ಆದ ಂದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ ೇಶ.
ಆ ೇಶ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾಗ ೕಕ -ೇJಾ (ವ0ೕ ಕರಣ, Aಯಂತ ಣ ಮತು=
OೕಲPನ#) Aಯಮಗಳ* 1957ರ Aಯಮ 25(2) ರF ಪ ದತ=Jಾದ
ಅ ಾರವನುR ಚ+ಾ T, ೕ ಮೂ , ಮು ಾ ಾ (ಮೂಲ ಹು ೆ
ಸಮು ಾಯ ಸಂಘಟ ಾ ಾ ), ಪಟ ಣ ಪಂ ಾ , ಹನೂರು ಇವರನುR
A ೇ ಶಕರು, Cೌ'ಾಡEತ A ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯರವರ ನಡವE/ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂ ೆ :
280352/Fಎಂಎ/ಇಎHಕೂ -2/ಎಂJೈಎL/28/2020-20, 5 ಾಂಕ:
04.12.2023ರ ಆ ೇಶದM?, ೆ.T.ಎL(T.T.ಎ) Aಯಮಗಳ* 1957
Aಯಮ 8(vi) ರನUಯ -ೇJೆ ಂದ ಕVಾWಯ Aವೃ =YೊET
ಆ ೇ Tರುವ1ದನುR ಎ Z
= Fದು ೕ ಮೂ ಇವರು ಸ ಾ ರದM? ಸM?Tರುವ
OೕಲPನ#ಯನುR ವ[ಾYೊET ಆ ೇ T ೆ."
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
14. In the entire statement of objections, no details
have been furnished to substantiate the allegation that
each E-khatas issued by the petitioner or the former Chief
Officer pertains to an unapproved layout. Although an
enquiry has been conducted, the Disciplinary Authority has
failed to produce evidence demonstrating how the
petitioner has illegally issued the E-khata. The absence of
such evidence undermines the allegations and raises
questions about the fairness of the proceedings.
15. The petitioner has produced additional
documents dated 27.03.2024, wherein petitioner has
produced copy of technical approval towards formation of
residential layout followed by an approved layout. These
documents establish that various survey numbers have
been converted, and a layout has been formed and
approved by the Town Planning Committee, Sub-Division
Mysore. This contradicts the allegations that the sites fall
under unapproved layouts.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
16. In the petitioner's detailed reply, evidenced at
Annexure-T, it is explicitly mentioned that the issuance of
Form-3, the generation of PID numbers, and the
subsequent approval by the Town and Planning Committee
are reflected in the petitioner's 'Shara'. Notably, this
explanation has not been countered by the Disciplinary
Authority with any rebuttal evidence. The failure to
address the petitioner's explanation or to produce
evidence to the contrary demonstrates a lack of diligence
in the enquiry process.
17. Key aspects of the case are as follows:
i. The first Show Cause Notice is evidenced at
Annexure-S, Page 112, where details of 54 sites
are mentioned. However, the survey numbers
pertaining to these sites have not been disclosed in
Annexure-S.
ii. The disputed sites, where E-khatas have been
issued, pertain to the Hannur Town Municipal
Corporation. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner took charge as Chief Officer only on
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
19.07.2018, after which the alleged irregularities
occurred.
iii. The petitioner's explanation to the Show Cause
Notice is detailed in Annexure-T, Page 116, where
he clearly states that the issuance of E-khatas has
been done in accordance with Namoone-3
(prescribed norms).
iv. Conversion orders, including those pertaining to
Survey Number 221/1 and others, are accompanied
by technical approval memos. This further
establishes that the petitioner acted within the
framework of the approved layouts and legal
procedures.
v. On Page 121 of the petitioner's explanation, he
specifically states that the issuance of E-khatas is
in line with the prescribed format and norms. This
explanation has not been adequately examined or
rebutted by the authorities.
18. It is a well-established principle of
administrative law that punitive actions, including
compulsory retirement, must adhere to principles of
natural justice, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. G.
Ganayutham1, emphasized that administrative
punishment must not be arbitrary or disproportionate to
the alleged misconduct and should always be based on
substantive evidence. Similarly, in State of U.P. vs.
Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh2, the Court
underscored that administrative actions must be free from
mala fide intent and must conform to fairness, equity, and
transparency.
19. Further, in V.R. Katarki vs. State of
Karnataka3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
when punitive action is taken without proper evidence and
in contravention of procedural safeguards, such action
becomes unsustainable.
20. In the present case, the departmental enquiry
is tainted with maladies, including failure to substantiate
allegations, lack of reliance on credible evidence, and
1
(1997) 7 SCC 463
2
(1989) 2 SCC 505
3
(1991) Supp (1) SCC 267
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
initiation of proceedings for extraneous and vindictive
reasons. Such defects render the impugned order of
compulsory retirement unsustainable in law. The absence
of proof regarding the alleged revenue loss and the
speculative nature of the charges demonstrate a gross
violation of the principles governing administrative actions
and disciplinary proceedings.
21. The basis on which petitioner is subjected to
departmental enquiry is that e-kathas were issued to the
public at large without completing developmental works
and without ascertaining as to whether basic
infrastructure, road, drainage, water supply, street lights,
etc., were accomplished. The further allegations are that
this e-kathas are issued without collecting any betterment
charges and that has caused huge financial loss to the
Municipality/Government. Though the Disciplinary
Authority has been relentlessly contesting the
departmental enquiry, it is quite shocking to note that no
particulars are furnished to demonstrate that there is a
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
revenue loss even otherwise. The explanation offered by
the petitioner is exhaustive and the explanation is adverts
to each of the site to which he has issued e-katha
indicating that there is a prior approval of the planning
authority and there are compliance.
22. In the impugned penalty, the Disciplinary
Authority has also directed to recover an amount of
Rs.4,43,170/- with 8% interest. How this figure is arrived
at is not forthcoming from the records. It is also not
forthcoming from the statement of objections and
additional documents which are placed on record by the
State by way of memo. Therefore, this Court is more than
satisfied that this initiation of departmental enquiry is
offshoot of the writ petition filed by the petitioner
questioning the transfer order followed by initiation of
contempt proceedings.
23. To impose a penalty of compulsory retirement,
the legal framework clearly contemplates that such a
penalty is reserved for cases involving charges of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
corruption. The relevant proviso to Rule 8 underscores this
principle by specifying that penalties other than those
stipulated under clauses (vi) to (viii) cannot be imposed
for an established charge of corruption unless there are
special and adequate reasons stated in the disciplinary
order to justify a different penalty. The proviso and its
accompanying explanation are integral to understanding
the permissible scope of disciplinary actions.
24. The specific proviso and explanations are
outlined as follows:
"Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in
the order of the Disciplinary Authority, no penalty
other than those specified in clauses (vi) to (viii)
shall be imposed for an established charge of
corruption.
Explanation 1.- For purposes of this proviso,
the expression 'corruption' shall have the meaning
assigned to the expression 'criminal misconduct by a
public servant' as defined in Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of
1988).
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
Explanation 2.- The following shall not
amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule:
(i) Withholding increments of a Government
Servant for failure to pass a departmental
examination in accordance with the rules or
orders governing the service or post or the terms
of his appointment;
(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar in the time
scale on grounds of unfitness to cross the bar;
(iii) Non-promotion of a Government Servant,
after consideration of his case, to a service,
grade, or post for which he is eligible;
(iv) Reversion to a lower service, grade, or post
for unsuitability in a higher role after a trial period
or due to administrative reasons unrelated to
conduct;
(v) Reversion to a permanent post for
probationers who fail to meet requirements;
(vi) Compulsory retirement in accordance with
retirement provisions;
(vii) Termination of services of individuals
employed under specific agreements,
probationary officers during their probation
period, or temporary government servants as per
relevant service rules."
25. The explanation to the proviso explicitly states
that the term 'corruption' aligns with 'criminal misconduct
by a public servant' as defined in Section 13 of the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The statutory
definition in Section 13 specifies several forms of
misconduct, including but not limited to habitual
acceptance of illegal gratification, dishonest
misappropriation of property, obtaining undue advantages
through corrupt means, or possession of disproportionate
assets.
26. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 elaborates as follows:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant:
(1) A public servant commits the offence of criminal
misconduct if: (a) Habitually accepts or attempts to
obtain illegal gratification beyond legal remuneration;
(b) Obtains or attempts to obtain valuables without
adequate consideration from interested parties; (c)
Dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates
entrusted property; (d) Gains pecuniary advantage
by corrupt or illegal means or abuses public office;
(e) Is found in possession of disproportionate assets.
Explanation: 'Known sources of income' refer to
lawful income reported as per applicable legal
provisions.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
(2) Offenders are punishable by imprisonment of not
less than one year, extendable to seven years, and
may also be liable to a fine."
27. In the present case, the charges against the
petitioner do not relate to any allegation of corruption as
defined by the aforementioned legal provisions. The
charges primarily concern the issuance of e-katha
certificates without proper record verification. The
petitioner presented credible documentary evidence during
the disciplinary inquiry, showing that the properties in
question were part of converted land with approved
layouts. This evidence has not been adequately refuted by
the Disciplinary Authority.
28. Furthermore, the penalty order lacks clarity and
fails to provide substantiated evidence to support the
claim of revenue loss incurred by the State due to the
petitioner's actions as the Chief Officer of Hanur Town
Municipal Council. The vague assertions made in the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
penalty order regarding alleged revenue losses are not
supported by concrete data or findings.
29. In light of these facts, it is evident that the
charges do not constitute corruption within the meaning of
the law, nor is there credible evidence of any misconduct
warranting the severe penalty of compulsory retirement.
The disciplinary proceedings and conclusions drawn
therein are thus open to significant legal and factual
scrutiny.
30. The impugned order of compulsory retirement
against the petitioner has been issued on the alleged
grounds of financial loss purportedly caused by the
issuance of E-khatas. However, no tangible evidence or
documented proof has been presented to substantiate the
claim of such financial loss. The respondents have failed to
produce any credible data during the departmental enquiry
to demonstrate that the sites for which the E-khatas were
issued were part of unapproved layouts. The impugned
penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority includes a
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
directive to recover an amount of Rs.4,43,170/- with 8%
interest. However, the rationale behind the computation of
this figure is unclear. The relevant records do not clarify
the basis for the calculation, nor is there any elucidation in
the statement of objections or additional documents
submitted by the State through a memo. Given this lack of
substantiating evidence, the Court finds itself compelled to
conclude that the initiation of the departmental enquiry
was likely motivated by extraneous factors, including the
petitioner's challenge to a transfer order and subsequent
initiation of contempt proceedings. The absence of
material justification renders the penalty not only
unsustainable but also disproportionate to the purported
misconduct.
31. The petitioner has submitted a comprehensive
explanation in response to Annexure-S, providing site-
specific details for each e-katha issued. The petitioner
references prior conversion orders approving the sites for
residential purposes. In Annexure-T, the petitioner clarifies
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
that Form No.3 has already been issued to the respective
property owners and that no account registration or Form
No.3 issuance has occurred in cases where property
owners have failed to pay property taxes. E-kathas were
only issued to those owners who had fulfilled their tax
obligations and presented the requisite challan to the
office.
32. Additional documents dated 27.03.2024,
produced by the petitioner, include copies of technical
approvals for the formation of residential layouts. These
documents verify that multiple survey numbers have been
legally converted, and the layout was duly approved by
the Town Planning Committee, Sub-Division Mysore. This
contradicts allegations that the properties in question
belong to unapproved layouts, thus undermining the
primary basis for the enquiry and penalty imposed. The
petitioner's compliance with procedural requirements and
adherence to lawful approvals further reinforces the
disproportionate nature of the penalty inflicted.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
33. While the learned Additional Advocate General
(AAG) contended that the assessment of financial loss was
premised on a report prepared by the Deputy
Commissioner (DC), it is imperative to highlight that this
report was neither introduced nor relied upon during the
course of the enquiry proceedings. The omission to
incorporate this critical report as part of the enquiry record
undermines the credibility of the findings and renders
them speculative at best. Furthermore, the petitioner
furnished a comprehensive explanation along with
supporting documentary evidence, including official
records and layout approvals, substantiating that the
issuance of E-khatas conformed to established norms.
Despite the availability of such evidence, the Disciplinary
Authority failed to effectively rebut the petitioner's claims
or present counter-evidence to support its allegations.
Consequently, the findings in the penalty order appear
unsubstantiated, lacking procedural fairness and
evidentiary support, thereby violating the mandates of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification,
Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The initiation of the
departmental enquiry, under circumstances indicative of a
retaliatory stance following the petitioner's legal challenge
to a transfer order and related contempt proceedings
against senior officials, further signals malafide intent and
misuse of administrative authority. In light of these facts,
the order of compulsory retirement is legally unsustainable
and warrants being set aside.
34. Conclusions:
1. Violation of procedure: The penalty of compulsory
retirement imposed on the petitioner contravenes
Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Service
(Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
This rule stipulates that such penalties are to be
reserved for cases involving proven charges of
corruption or misconduct supported by substantial
evidence.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
2. Absence of Corruption Charges: The charges
against the petitioner relate solely to the issuance of
e-katha certificates without adequate verification of
record conversion orders and layout plans. No
allegations or evidence were presented that could
constitute corruption or "criminal misconduct" as
defined under Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Lack of Substantiated Evidence: The disciplinary
enquiry failed to present credible or verifiable
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's actions
caused any financial loss to the State or involved
unapproved layouts. The assertion of revenue loss
remains unsupported by documentary proof.
4. Inadequate Justification for Recovery: The
directive to recover Rs. 4,43,170/- with 8% interest
from the petitioner is baseless, as neither the
rationale for this calculation nor supporting records
have been provided.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
5. Petitioner's Compliance with Legal
Procedures: The petitioner provided detailed
explanations and supporting documents, including
prior conversion orders and technical approvals,
which demonstrated that the issuance of e-kathas
adhered to legal and procedural norms. The
Disciplinary Authority failed to rebut these
explanations or present counter-evidence.
6. Non-Reliance on Critical Report: Although a
financial loss report prepared by the Deputy
Commissioner (DC) was referenced by the
respondents, it was not introduced or relied upon
during the enquiry proceedings, undermining the
credibility and admissibility of the findings.
Compounding the procedural deficiency is the fact
that the report has not been produced before this
Court, thereby rendering it impossible for judicial
scrutiny or evaluation of its contents and
authenticity.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
7. Retaliatory Proceedings: The initiation of
departmental proceedings appears to be retaliatory,
following the petitioner's challenge to a transfer
order and the initiation of contempt proceedings
against senior officials. This points to potential
malafide intent and abuse of administrative power.
8. Failure to Follow Procedural Fairness: The
disciplinary process lacked procedural fairness, as
evidenced by speculative findings unsupported by
verifiable evidence and the absence of a clear basis
for penalty imposition.
9. Legal Unsustainability of the Penalty: The
impugned penalty of compulsory retirement, coupled
with the financial recovery directive, is legally
unsustainable due to the lack of substantive evidence
and procedural deficiencies.
10. Failure of Disciplinary Authority to Rebut
Evidence:
Despite the petitioner's provision of robust counter-
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
evidence, the Disciplinary Authority failed to
effectively challenge or rebut these claims. The lack
of any meaningful effort to address or discredit the
petitioner's documentary submissions reflects a
procedural oversight that significantly weakens the
credibility of the authority's stance.
11. Inquiry Officer's Omission to Address
Crucial Explanations:
The Inquiry Officer inexplicably neglected to address
the petitioner's key explanations and evidence during
the proceedings. This omission amounts to a failure
to conduct a fair and impartial assessment of the
facts and constitutes a procedural defect
undermining the findings of the inquiry.The
Disciplinary Authority disregarded the petitioner's
explanation, failing to provide reasoned findings or
cogent justifications for rejecting the petitioner's
evidence. Such disregard contravenes principles of
procedural fairness and due process, which mandate
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
that decision-making authorities meaningfully
engage with the submissions and evidence of the
accused.
12. Necessity to Set Aside Penalty: In view of the
aforementioned points, the order of compulsory
retirement is disproportionate and lacks legal
justification. The imposition of penalties without due
process and substantiation undermines the principles
of justice and fairness, warranting the setting aside
of the impugned order.
13. The Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1)
failed to adequately consider or address the detailed
explanations and evidence submitted by the
petitioner in response to the charges. Instead, the
authority mechanically affirmed the order of
compulsory retirement without providing any
independent analysis or reasoned justification for
rejecting the petitioner's submissions. This
perfunctory approach violates principles of natural
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53190
WP No. 9429 of 2024
justice and due process, rendering the appellate
decision legally unsustainable.
35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order of compulsory retirement issued against the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Annexures-A and B are hereby set aside;
(iii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into service with arrears, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits;
(iv) The respondents shall ensure compliance with this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5