Court Says No Prima Facie Evidence of Gross Dereliction Against Executive Engineer
In a significant development in the tragic wall collapse case at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the suspension of the executive engineer, observing that there was no prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty against him.
The incident, which occurred at the hospital premises in Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, claimed seven lives, including that of a six-year-old girl, and left seven others injured after a compound wall collapsed during heavy rainfall. The deceased reportedly included two women, four men, and a child, while three of the injured were tourists from Kerala visiting Bengaluru.
High Court Questions Basis of Suspension
According to reports, a vacation bench comprising Justices Suraj Govindaraj and K N Manmadha Rao set aside the suspension order issued on May 1 by the Health and Family Welfare Department.
The court observed that the mere occurrence of the wall collapse could not automatically establish negligence on the part of the executive engineer.
The bench noted that while the incident was undoubtedly tragic, there was currently no material on record showing prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty by the petitioner.
Engineer Approached High Court After Tribunal Refusal
The executive engineer had moved the Karnataka High Court after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal refused to stay the suspension order earlier this month.
Senior advocate P S Rajagopal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that under Rule 10(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, suspension could only be imposed when there is prima facie evidence of gross negligence or dereliction of duty.
He argued before the court that no such evidence had yet been produced against the engineer and pointed out that inquiry committees constituted by the Public Works Department were still investigating the incident.
Inquiry Committees Yet to Submit Findings
The counsel further submitted that disciplinary action could only be initiated after the inquiry committees submitted their reports identifying responsibility for the collapse.
The Karnataka government opposed the plea, contending that the engineer, being the officer in charge of the site, could be suspended based on the occurrence itself. The state also cited allegations that debris and mud dumped near the wall during construction activity may have weakened the structure and contributed to the collapse.
However, the High Court held that suspension under Rule 10(1)(d) required prima facie evidence specifically against the concerned officer and not merely reliance on the occurrence of the incident itself.
Government Free to Act After Inquiry Report: Court
The bench clarified that the government would still be free to take disciplinary action if the inquiry committees later establish negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the engineer.
The court emphasized that administrative powers must be exercised with proper application of mind and based on available evidence rather than assumptions arising solely from the tragic event.
The wall collapse incident at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital had triggered widespread concern regarding public infrastructure safety and accountability during ongoing construction and monsoon conditions in Bengaluru.
