Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1031 (KAR)

Upa-Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

2023-08-31

K.SOMASHEKAR, UMESH M.ADIGA

body2023
JUDGMENT K.SOMASHEKAR, J. - Heard, learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioners and also Sri. V. Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondents Nos.1 to 3. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 18/9/2020 in Application No.2440/2020 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, vide Annexure - A. 3. The briefs facts of the case are that respondent No.4 while working as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector at Assistant Transport Office, Nagamangala, Mandya District and a criminal case has been registered against him on 8/1/2008 in Crime No.1/2008 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the complaint, on 8/1/2008 respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4, 500.00 from the complainant to estimate the value of the vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed in the criminal case in Spl.Case No.40/2009 on the file of the Principal Special Judge at Mandya and during the pendency of the criminal case, departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent on the same set of facts, pursuant to the issuance of charge memo/articles of charge dtd. 30/4/2011 vide Annexure - A1. Respondent filed detailed reply stating that he reported to duty on the forenoon of 7/1/2008 as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, after relieved from Belgaum on 5/1/2008 and accordingly, denied the allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dtd. 19/3/2019 was submitted as per Annexure - A2 The Upalokayukta, having taken note of the enquiry report recommended for imposition of punishment of permanently withholding 50% of the pension payable to the respondent and pursuant to the same, second show-cause notice dated 04. 04.2019, was issued to the respondent, seeking explanation and thereby, the respondent submitted reply dtd. 31/7/2019 vide Annexure -A5 stating that the finding recorded by enquiry officer are without any basis and illegal. The disciplinary authority, considering the observation made in the enquiry report, issued impugned order dtd. 7/3/2020 vide Annexure - A6 imposing the penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the pension payable to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent has approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of Annexure - A6. 4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor - Lokayukta facilitating the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15908/2021 (S-KSAT) dtd. 27/10/2021. 7/3/2020 vide Annexure - A6 imposing the penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the pension payable to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent has approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of Annexure - A6. 4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor - Lokayukta facilitating the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15908/2021 (S-KSAT) dtd. 27/10/2021. This writ petition has been initiated by respondent No.1 - State of Karnataka represented by Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Bengaluru and respondent No.2 - The Commissioner for Transport. This writ petition has been initiated against respondent No.1 Sri.Jameel Ahmed S/o. Late. Gulam Ahamad, aged about 69 years. The remaining respondents being the rank of the parties, which is also depicted therein in detail. Wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, held that "the finding recorded by the official - respondent imposing punishment on the respondent is based on no evidence, therefore the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is without any basis and contrary to records and we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed" 5. However, dwelling in detail about the material which is placed on record and also keeping in view the submission made by learned Special Public Prosecutor in this matter and various grounds has been urged but we are anxiously considering the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and equally arguments addressed by learned AGA for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Keeping in view the contentions made by learned Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner, even though respondent namely Sri. Jameel Ahmed, who is facing a trial for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and so also subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, the investigation Officer has taken up the case for investigation and thorough investigation has been done by recording the statement of the witnesses and conducted a Mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laying up a charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. The accused is facing a trial for the said offences inclusive of facing a departmental enquiry. 6. The accused is facing a trial for the said offences inclusive of facing a departmental enquiry. 6. Where as, keeping in view the contentions of learned Spl.P.P for the petitioner and also learned AGA for respondents, we are of the opinion that the contentions taken by learned counsel does not arise for consideration again. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.