Karnataka High Court
Shri. K.N. Swamy vs The Director on 2 March, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.9487-9491 OF 2017(S-DE)
BETWEEN :
1. Shri K.N.Swamy,
S/o.Late T.K.Krishnamurthy,
Aged 42 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
City Municipal Corporation,
Challakere Taluka,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
2. Shri H.M.Ranganath,
S/o.H.R.Murgendrappa,
Aged 50 years,
Assistant Engineer,
Municipal Council,
Hiriyur Taluka,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
3. Miss Shruthi H.K.
D/o.Krishna Murthy H.K.
Aged 27 years,
Junior Engineer,
Municipal Corporation,
Davanagere District - 577 221.
4. Shri Maradi Rangappa,
S/o.Thippeswamy,
Aged 56 years,
Executive Engineer,
Pulkeshi Nagara,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Bangalore - 560 006.
2
5. Shri S.S.Biradar,
S/o.Sangangowda Biradar,
Aged 55 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
City Municipal Corporation,
Davanagere - 577 004. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Udita Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Director,
Directorate of Municipalities,
9th Floor, V.V.Tower,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Executive Engineer,
Davanagere Mahanagara Palike,
Davanagere - 577 002.
3. Commissioner,
Mahanagar Palike,
Hiriyur Taluka,
Chitradurga District - 577 598.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Chitradurga District,
Chitradurga - 577 598.
5. Deputy Commissioner,
Davanagere District,
Davanagere - 577 006.
6. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...Respondents
3
(By Sri E.S.Indiresh, AGA for R1, R4, R5 and R6:
Notice to R2 and R3 dispensed with)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the suspension orders
dated 23.2.2017 at Annexure-D and Annexure-E issued by R1
under Rule 9(2)(c) and Rule 10(1) of Karnataka Civil Services
Rules (Classification, control, Appeal) 1957, etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Issuance of notice to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with.
2. The petitioners have called into question two orders, both dated 23.02.2017 (Annexures D and E), suspending them from services on the ground that the roads formed under their supervision are sub-standard.
3. Sri Udita Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being unnecessarily targeted and victimized. He submits that the overall responsibility for ensuring the form of good quality roads is that of the Executive Engineer, Project Director and Urban Development Cell. He submits that no action whatsoever is initiated against the 4 petitioners' higher officers. When the superior authorities are not being brought to the book, the impugned suspension orders passed against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of E.S.REDDY vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (1987) 3 SCC 258.
4. He submits that four reports are already submitted to the effect that bitumen content of the road is proper. He submits that the roads in question came to be formed in 2014. The climatic conditions, rainfall, etc. are also to be taken into account while examining the issues of whether the road formation is done as per the prescribed specifications. He submits that based only on the last report, the action is being initiated against the petitioners for malafide reasons.
5. Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the impugned orders are appeallable. He submits that on finding prima-facie material against the petitioning engineers, the suspension orders are issued pending enquiry.
5
6. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is trite that the suspension order is not punitive. Whether the petitioners are guilty or innocent of the charges levelled against them is to be established by holding the enquiry, which is being conducted. The suspension order, as such, does not put the delinquent officials to any loss or prejudice.
7. It is trite that the issuance of the suspension order does not give any firm cause of action to approach this Court. The petitioners may be exonerated in the enquiry. Further it is quite possible that after holding the enquiry, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings. Therefore, the disciplinary authority will take a final call on the matter. The petitioners are being afforded with the opportunities in the enquiry to show that they are innocent. Should the enquiry report go adverse to the interests of the petitioners, they can offer the remarks thereon before the disciplinary authority.
8. Thus not finding scope for my interference, I dismiss these writ petitions.
6
9. The respondent authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Needless to observe that all the issues are left open to be urged before the appropriate authority at appropriate stages.
10. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-