R. DEVDAS J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench in Application No.20208/2022 dated 17.08.2023. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the Government order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the first respondent. Action was taken against the petitioner on allegation that by misusing the powers without calling quotation, the petitioner purchased CFL bulbs for Rs.1,00,000/- and paid Rs.5,000/- for celebration of Ambedkar Jayanthi and carried out painting works of the Community Center. The petitioner was then working as Panchayat Development Officer at Chimkod Gram Panchayat, Bidar Taluk.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the charge of misappropriation of funds has not been proved, however, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of not following the provisions of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KTPP Act’, for short). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not proportionate to the gravity of the charges and it is excessive in nature. The punishment that was imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was without holding of four annual increments with cumulative effect and also for deferring the promotion by four years whenever he becomes due for promotion invoking Rule 8(iii)(iii-a) of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and the other part of the punishment was set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the KTPP Act as it was then applicable was in respect of works of a value which does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the value of the works entrusted by the petitioner under two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-, the provisions of the KTPP Act would not be attracted. However, the learned counsel does not dispute the fact that even if the provisions of the KTPP Act for calling tender would not apply, even otherwise the requirement of calling for quotation would be applicable. The learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner had taken the permission of the higher authority and had called for quotation. Responding to the quotation, five agencies had applied and presented their response to the quotation and the petitioner selected the person who had quoted the lowest. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in respect to the application of the KTPP Act and the violation of the same at the hands of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is submitted that the punishment imposed by the Tribunal would again be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge made against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta, however, pointed out from the material available on record that the works were allotted to a person who was related to the husband of the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case which would require interference at the hands of this Court. As rightly pointed out, the provisions of the KTPP Act may not be applicable having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, admittedly the value of the works entrusted by the petitioner is not more than Rs.1,00,000/- as required under Section 4 of the KTPP Act. It has been submitted that it was the first appointment and posting of the petitioner as Panchayat Development Officer and he was not fully aware of the applicable provisions. Nevertheless, since we have found that the provisions of the KTPP Act would also not apply to the present case, we are required to reconsider the penalty imposed by the Tribunal. Although we are convinced that the provisions of the KTPP Act would also not apply to the facts of the present case, nevertheless, we have to notice that in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the petitioner should have been careful and should have verified as to whether the person to whom the works were to be entrusted is in any way related to the members of the Gram Panchayat. In that view of the matter, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench in Application No.20208/2022 is hereby modified while imposing a penalty of censure on the petitioner in terms of Clause(ii) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957.

iii) The other part of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal is accordingly set aside.

iv) Consequently, order passed by the respondent - authority in Government Order dated 31.12.2021 at Annexre-A9 is also quashed and set aside.

v) Ordered accordingly.