The High Court of Karnataka has found fault in the actions of the State government as well as the Lokayukta in initiating disciplinary proceedings against an engineer for not acting against an illegal building situated in Hombegowda ward, while pointing out that the engineer could not take further action as a tribunal had ordered maintenance of status quo with respect to the illegal construction.
“An officer of the State is required to abide by the orders of courts and tribunals. If there is an order of such a court and tribunal restraining the officer from performing any particular action, the non-performance thereof cannot be said to be a dereliction of duty,” the court observed.
Justice Suraj Govidaraj passed the order while quashing the disciplinary proceedings against B.S. Sandeep, who was working as an assistant executive engineer in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike during 2013.
The BBMP issued both preliminary and final notification with respect to an illegally constructed building in August 2013 but it could not go ahead with the demolition as the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in November 2013 directed the BBMP to maintain status quo on the nature of the building.
Suo motu probe
Meanwhile, the Lokayukta had taken suo motu probe into construction of various properties, including the one involved in the present case, and found that the jurisdictional officers/engineers of the BBMP had failed to act against this illegal construction.
Based on the Lokayukta’s preliminary report, the government initiated departmental enquiry against the officer, including the petitioner, and entrusted the task of enquiry to the Lokayukta during 2016.
However, the court found that the tribunal’s order of status quo was in force when the Lokayukta gave the preliminary report, when the government initiated departmental enquiry in March 2016, and when the Lokayukta issued chargesheet to the petitioner in July 2016.
When the petitioner and the BBMP was restrained from acting owing to the tribunal’s order, disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated against him, the court said.
Published – April 24, 2025 10:40 pm IST