Land officer’s salary cut over 26 yrs of inquiry

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A special land acquisition officer whose salary was reduced by a disciplinary authority following allegations in the year 1997 continued to fight the case over the last three decades. Finally a Division Bench of the HC also upheld the penalty imposed on him recently.

The Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda said, “We find that the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that it could not interfere in the order of imposing penalty. Even otherwise, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the charges proved against him. We do not find good grounds to interfere under writ jurisdiction,” and dismissed his petition.

Siddappa Dambal, now aged 75 was an SLAO when a departmental inquiry was initiated against him levelling 14 charges in 1997. Based on the report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority by order dated June 4, 2002 imposed a penalty of reducing the salary of the petitioner to Rs 10,800 for a period of two years.

Dambal challenged it in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in 1999. He contended that the inquiry was held without securing relevant documents. The Tribunal accepted the contention and quashed the inquiry proceedings against him. The Government challenged this before the High Court. While the case was pending, the relevant documents were traced.

The HC ordered for a fresh inquiry. In the second departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority found him guilty of some of the charges and imposed a penalty of reducing his pay from Rs 13,120 to Rs 11,840. It was also directed that the pay scale would not revert back to the original scale after his retirement and he would not be entitled to annual increment for that period. Dambal questioned it before the Tribunal again.

This was also dismissed on October 27, 2016. Dambal then approached the Division Bench of the HC in 2021, which gave its judgment recently. The HC noted that his original grievance was that he was not given an opportunity by the disciplinary authority.

“There was no denial of opportunity to the petitioner. His grievance was that he was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation to show-cause notice issued to him after acceptance of the inquiry report. But in the impugned order of the Tribunal, it was clearly observed that the second showcause notice dated 07.12.2004 was served.” Dambal’s petition was thus dismissed.