Karnataka HC quashes suspension of engineer in Bowring Hospital wall collapse case

The High Court permitted the government to take action if the inquiry committees, once their reports are submitted, find evidence of negligence attributable to the officer.
CM Siddaramaiah inspecting the site of wall collapse at Bowring Hospital in 
Shivajinagar.
CM Siddaramaiah inspecting the site of wall collapse at Bowring Hospital in Shivajinagar.
Written by:
Published on

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, May 21, quashed the state government’s order suspending Executive Engineer M B Nagaraj over alleged dereliction of duty linked to the collapse of the compound wall of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, which killed seven people on April 29.

A vacation bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and K N Manmadha Rao set aside the May 1 suspension order issued by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, holding that the action lacked the required prima facie evidence.

In its order, the bench observed, “In the present case, the event of the falling of the compound wall by itself does not create any prima facie evidence of gross dereliction against the petitioner... which, though tragic, at present, cannot be attributed to the petitioner.”

Nagaraj had moved the High Court after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal refused to grant him interim relief on May 6.

Senior advocate P S Rajagopal, appearing for Nagaraj, argued that a suspension under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, requires prima facie evidence of gross negligence. He submitted that no such material had been placed on record.

Rajagopal also noted that the Public Works Department had already formed two committees, one for local investigation and another for technical examination of the wall collapse, which are expected to submit reports within seven days.

“Without the said report being on record… the petitioner could not have been suspended,” he argued, adding that any disciplinary proceedings should follow only after the committee findings.

Opposing any relief, the government counsel maintained that the very fact that the wall collapsed at a site overseen by Nagaraj amounted to prima facie evidence.

The counsel also argued that Nagaraj was responsible for ensuring the removal of construction debris dumped near the wall, which may have contributed to its failure.

The bench disagreed, stating, “There has to be prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty against him. The event itself is not sufficient.”

The court ruled that the suspension order was issued without “application of mind” and without establishing preliminary evidence against Nagaraj. It also set aside the tribunal’s order that had declined him interim relief.

However, the High Court permitted the government to take action if the inquiry committees, once their reports are submitted, find evidence of negligence attributable to the officer.

Seven people, including two children, street vendors, and two tourists from Kerala, were killed when a portion of the compound wall collapsed during heavy rain on April 29. During an inspection, officials informed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah that mud dug up during ongoing construction at the hospital had been dumped near the wall, potentially weakening it.

The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com