DINESH J Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions have prayed for common prayer. The writ petitions arise out of common facts. Hence, the above petitions are heard together at the request of the learned counsels for the parties and disposed off by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions with a common prayer as follows:

(3.) The first petitioner in W.P.No.28677-78 of 2017 is working as Junior Engineer in the 4th respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) and second petitioner is Retired Assistant Executive Engineer from Public Works Department, whereas in W.P.No.11322 of 2017, the petitioner is working as Executive Engineer in the 4th respondent-BBMP. It is stated that, during 2013- 14, while the petitioners were working at K.R.Puram Division of 4th respondent-BBMP, one Smt.Chandrakala started construction in site No.151, Katha No.106/2, T.C.Palya Main Road, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru. The construction was contrary to the by-laws and building plan. Noticing the illegal construction, Provisional Order under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was issued to the owner on 10.12.2014. Thereafter the confirmation order was issued on 19.12.2014. When the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent filed complaint before the second respondent- the Karnataka Lokayukta on 07.03.2015 making allegations that Smt.Chandrakala, owner of Site No.151 is constructing the building on the public road, and the BBMP officials have not taken any action against Smt.Chandrakala or to stop unauthorized construction. Based on the complaint of the 5th respondent, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Lokayukta Act). It is stated that the second respondent issued notice to Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer, seeking explanation on the complaint of the 5th respondent. Further stated that no notice was issued to Executive Engineer i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.11322 of 2017. The second respondent, after investigation under Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act submitted report under Section 12(3) of Lokayukta Act, recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and to entrust the enquiry to the 2nd respondent under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA' Rules).