President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct

An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the Institution may also amount to misconduct." — Karnataka High Court delivered a decisive judgment on the scope of misconduct under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav upheld the disqualification of the President of the Arasikere City Municipal Council for facilitating the unauthorized demolition of a municipal pump-house without council authorization. The Court observed, "The petitioner has not only been negligent in safeguarding the property but the action could be described as misconduct in discharge of his duties."
The proceedings arose out of an incident where the petitioner, Sri Girish S., who was serving as the President of the Arasikere Municipal Council, was accused of facilitating the removal of municipal materials and the eventual demolition of a pump-house situated on municipal property. The controversy deepened when it was alleged that the act was carried out without the approval of the Municipal Commissioner or the Municipal Council. The complaint from the Commissioner stated, "The President had unilaterally issued directions to the staff for removal of the material from the structure indirectly supporting the action of removal of the pump-house and thereby causing loss to the Municipality."
The petitioner defended himself by stating, "In order to protect the materials of the Municipal Council, he had directed the assistant waterman to remove the material / belongings of the municipal council," and further contended that "there is no document in the municipal council to show that, the property in question belongs to the second respondent."
Simultaneously, Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha filed a writ petition challenging the adverse observations affecting their claim over the land in question.
The Court addressed whether the enquiry conducted against the President violated the principles of natural justice. The Court answered, "It cannot be stated that the order of the Regional Commissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice," as no prejudice was shown due to the absence of cross-examination of witnesses, which the petitioner never even requested.
In dealing with the charge of misconduct, the Court found, "It is admitted that the material was shifted out of the pump house upon his direction... Subsequently, it is also admitted by him that the pump house was demolished." The Court remarked that the President's justification that his actions were to "safeguard" municipal property was a "stand inconsistent with the title of the Municipality" and concluded that "such explanation ought to have been demonstrated" properly within the municipal governance framework.
The Court further held, "The President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council," referring to a prior resolution dated 27.03.1995 which clearly recorded that the possession of the disputed land was with the Municipality until proper alienation proceedings were concluded. The Court stated, "No process of alienation in terms of the resolution dated 27.03.1995 has been made," and thus, the President could not have permitted the shifting of municipal materials without express authorization.
The Court invoked Section 42(10) and Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and observed, "The petitioner has failed to prevent the demolition of the pump-house by being lax in preventing the removal of material from the pump-house."
In considering whether the act amounted to misconduct, the Court stressed, "In fact, it must be noted that the Apex Court has at Para 13 stated that 'an action which is detrimental to the prestige of the Institution may also amount to misconduct'." The Court further clarified, "The lapse of the petitioner is not merely an oversight but clear breach of duty to safeguard the municipal property."
The argument that there was no clear record proving the municipal ownership of the land was rejected. The Court observed, "The assertion that the property belongs to the respondent no.3-Sangha and action taken in relation to the shifting of material without the authorisation of the Council is a misconduct."
The Court upheld the disqualification of the petitioner under Sections 42(10) and 41(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act stating, "Once the misconduct is held to be proved and the President is removed in terms of Section 42 (10) of the Act, he also ceases to be a Councillor and is deemed to have been removed from the office of the Council."
However, on the question of personal liability under Section 308, the Court clarified, "The present finding is by the Regional Commissioner who has no jurisdiction to record such finding in order to fasten personal liability." Hence, the finding on personal liability was set aside, but the Court left open the option for the competent authority to proceed afresh under Section 308.
As regards the Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha’s petition, the Court carefully limited the findings, stating, "Any observations made in the course of the proceedings by the Regional Commissioner are limited to the proceedings under Sections 42 (10) and 41 of the Act and cannot be construed to be a conclusive finding as regards title, possession, interest of the Municipality."
The High Court thus upheld the disqualification but removed the personal liability imposed by the Regional Commissioner. It firmly recorded, "The property of the Municipality is held in trust by the Municipal Council and it is the duty of the President to safeguard it being cognizant that he also required to function as a Trustee of a Constructive Trust."
Ultimately, the Court concluded, "The findings recorded clearly enumerate the misconduct based on the appreciation of material on record. Such findings do not call for any interference and from the discussion made above, it would only indicate the necessity of upholding such finding."

Date of Decision: 2 April 2025