PDO loses 2 increments for failing to repair hand pump

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) was imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments for allegedly failing to repair a hand pump despite complaints.

Nearly a decade later, the High Court has come to his rescue after finding that the hand pump was repaired before the enquiry against him was conducted.

A division bench of the High Court comprising Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda set aside the penalty order and also the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) which had upheld the penalty.

Purushothama KG was working as a PDO at Chikkanahalli Grama Panchayat, Bengaluru South Taluk since 2010.

In March 2014, one Puttaswamy, a resident of the village filed a complaint with the Lokayukta stating that despite repeated requests, the PDO had not taken any action to repair the hand pump in the village.

The Lokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report recommending enquiry. The State Government, under the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta.

After enquiry, it was held that the charges against him were proven and a recommendation for made to withhold two annual increments with cumulative effect.

Purushothama approached the KSAT which dismissed his application. Purushothama then approached the High Court in 2022. He contended that the hand pump was repaired on March 3, 2014, itself.

His advocate pointed out that the electrician and pump operator of the Grama Panchayat was examined in the proceedings and stated that the pump was repaired on March 3, 2014.

But in the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer had stated that the borewell was repaired after the filing of the complaint. Considering this, the HC in its judgement said, “The evidence of the pump operator clearly shows that the pump was repaired on 03.03.2014. However, in para 34 of the Report, the Enquiry Officer has held that the bore well was repaired after filing the complaint. The finding recorded in para 34 of the Enquiry Report without adverting to the evidence of the Pump Operator, is perverse and unsustainable in law.”

Allowing the petition and setting aside the KSAT order, the HC said, “We are conscious of the fact that the scope of judicial review is very limited. However, if the material on record discloses a complete nonapplication of mind, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in such matters as an exception. The facts recorded hereinabove clearly demonstrate that the Enquiry Report is contrary to the evidence on record. The penalty imposed based on that Report is unsustainable." (WP 12347/2022)