The Karnataka High Court has struck down a Lokayukta decision that found an engineer with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike guilty of inaction against the encroachment of public property, citing flaws in its inquiry report, among other issues. A bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde said in its order passed on July 11, “On a cursory perusal of the enquiry report, we notice that there was no evidence adduced before the enquiry officer to hold that the writ petitioner..had any role whatsoever in facilitating of encroachment into the public property or preventing of the unauthorized construction..The Investigating Officer, who was the sole witness in support of the charges before the Enquiry Officer, specifically stated during cross-examination that the building was one put up 5 to 6 years before the date of inspection which was carried out by him in the year 2007.” The Lokayukta had recommended initiating proceedings against K B Narasimhamurthy, who was posted as an assistant engineer in the Binnypet subdivision from April 20 to September 22 in 2006, and five others after one Shankar filed a complaint against the BBMP for not taking action against the encroacher. An inquiry report was submitted in 2017 stating that the charges were proved and the accused had failed to take care to prevent the unauthorised construction. A penalty of withholding three salary increments without cumulative effect was then imposed on Narasimhamurthy. While dismissing the punishment imposed on Narasimhamurthy, the bench said, “We are of the opinion that the Disciplinary Authority (in the Public Works Department) as well as the (Karnataka State Administrative) Tribunal have failed to take note of the glaring illegality vitiating the enquiry report even though the same has been specifically highlighted by the petitioner. The imposition of penalty relying on the enquiry report which was inherently flawed and based on no evidence at all was also completely unjustified.” The bench further said that no complaint was raised during the pendency of Narasimhamurthy’s posting in the subdivision. It was also noted that the evidence of a different witness from the locality was taken instead of that of the complainant. The court also directed all monetary benefits due to the petitioner to be paid within three months.
