Karnataka HC clears BBMP engineer of inaction charges, says he followed tribunal order

BENGALURU: An officer of the state is required to abide by the orders of courts and tribunals. If there is an order from such a court or tribunal restraining the officer from performing any particular action, the non-performance thereof cannot be said to be a dereliction of duty, the Karnataka High Court has observed in a recent order.
Justice

Suraj Govindaraj

made this observation while quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry to

Upa Lokayukta

in March 2016 and the charge sheet issued against petitioner BC Sandeep, an Assistant Engineer with the BBMP, in July 2016.
The case against the petitioner was that in 2013, he, along with other officials of the BBMP, failed to take action against an unauthorised construction in 7th Cross, Jayanagar 1st Block, in terms of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act

, despite the issuance of provisional and confirmatory orders in 2013.
Though his name was in the promotion list, it was not considered, citing a pending enquiry taken up suo motu by the Lokayukta.

Challenging the orders issued against him, Sandeep argued that during the three years he worked, there was an interim order of status quo issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on November 25, 2013, based on an appeal filed by the owner of the said property.
Hence, he and his superiors could not take any further action vis-a-vis the unauthorised construction/deviation in the subject property. He further claimed that he is duty-bound to follow the orders issued by the courts/tribunals as an official.
On the other hand, the

Lokayukta

argued that the proceedings against the petitioner needed to be continued as no action was initiated in the matter when violations were noticed.
After perusing the materials on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that both on the date of entrustment of the enquiry to Upa Lokayukta and on the date of issuance of the charge sheet, the interim order of the

KAT

was in operation. Hence, the petitioner could not take further action in pursuance of the confirmation order issued under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, and the same cannot be held against him.
Quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, the judge clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion regarding the other seven persons against whom a charge sheet has been filed.