Shri T S Subramanya vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6841 Kant

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

        WRIT PETITION No.2148/2017 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN

SHRI T. S. SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE T.S. SRINIVASA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY OCCUPIED AS:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - 'MYSORE PALACE'
MYSORE PALACE BOARD,
R/AT NO. 558, 11TH MAIN,
7TH B CROSS, K.C.LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 011.
                                        ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI.K.SATISH, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

AND

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
       MYSURU DIVISION,
       MYSURU - 11.

2.     THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
       KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
       BENGALURU - 01.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
                                    2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING
TO QUASH THE COMPLAINANT FIR IN CR.NO.7/14 (VIDE
ANNEX-A & B TO THE PETITION) OF KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MYSORE, AND FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSION COURT, MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE. AND
ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.12.2021, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
                            ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in Crime No.7/2014 registered

for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(C)(D)(ii)

and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Sri.K.Satish, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents and have

perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner at the relevant point in time was

working as a Deputy Director of the Mysore Palace

Board. The work of a refurbishing the Palace was

undertaken by the Government to which certain funds

were allotted to the Palace. One such work that was

allotted was the work of Gold Leafing to the existing

structure in the Palace. At that point in time, the

petitioner who was working as a Deputy Director was,

along with others entrusted to carryout the work.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he has

sought exemption from the process of tender and

awarded the said work to a skilled artisan by name

Sri.Raghupati Bhat. On completion of the said work, the

statements seeking payment was furnished by

Sri.Raghupati Bhat, which was paid by the Board.

5. A complaint is registered before the

Lokayukta by one Shahzad Khan who was earlier

entrusted with the work of refurbishment and gold

leafing, contending that Sri.Raghupati Bhat was not

qualified to undertake the work of Gold Leafing in the

Palace, as it is a peculiar art and an artist of the kind of

Shahzad Khan was the only person who could do it who

had been in the business of doing such work in the

past. This complaint to the Lokayukta results in a suo

moto complaint by the Lokayukta and FIR being

registered pursuant to the said complaint for the

offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C)(D)(ii) and

(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in

the complaint is that the petitioner along with several

others have indulged in such acts, as punishable under

Sections 13(1)(C)(D)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code.

6. It is at that juncture, the petitioner has

knocked the doors of this Court in the subject writ

petition and this Court by an order dated 20.01.2017

had interjected further investigation into the matter by

grant of an interim order. The said order is in operation

even as on date.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Sri.K.Satish, would submit that there are subsequent

developments which goes to the root of the matter and

has filed a memo appending those documents, which

are official documents, which according to the learned

counsel would clinch the issue in favour of the

petitioner.

8. Learned counsel would submit that the

Lokayukta had sought entrustment of departmental

inquiry to its hands by submission of a report under

Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984

('the Act' for short) and the State Government examining

the said report under Section 12(4) of the Act has

declined to entrust the inquiry to the hands of the

Lokayukta in terms of Rule 14(A) of Karnataka Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1957 and would submit that the very substratum of the

offence that is alleged in the complaint registered by the

Lokayukta is taken away by the Act of the cabinet in the

Government declining to entrust the inquiry to the

hands of the Lokayukta.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would place reliance upon the following judgments:

        i)     P.S.RAJYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR1

        ii)    LOKESH KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF
               RAJASTHAN2

iii) ASHOO SURENDRANATH TEWARI VS. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW, CBI AND ANOTHER3

iv) VITTAL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4

1 (1996) 9 SCC 1 2 (2013) 11 SCC 130

v) SRI.A.L.JAYARAMU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS5

vi) DR.S.CHANDRASHEKHAR PRASAD VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA6

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel

Sri.B.S.Prasad vehemently refuting the said

submissions would contend that the complaint in the

criminal case is entirely different and the entrustment of

an inquiry or otherwise by the Lokayukta is entirely

different from the entrustment proceedings by the

Lokayukta and would submit that it is a matter of trial

that the petitioner has to come out clean. He would

place reliance upon the following judgments:

i) STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI VS. AJAY KUMAR TYAGI7

ii) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C.B.I.) VS.

DEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS8

iii) SRI.P.V.AVARADHI VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE9

7 2012 AIR SCW 4815 8 AIR 1996 SC 186

iv) STATE THROUGH SPE & CBI, ANDHRA PRADESH VS. M.KRISHNA MOHAN AND ANOTHER10

v) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. V.K.

BHUTIANI11

vi) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C.B.I.) VS.

DEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS12

11. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

12. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute

are not reiterated. Before embarking upon the

consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it

appropriate to notice the subsequent development at

the outset. The subsequent development sprang from

the very same incident of the petitioner indulging in

entrustment of certain work to Sri.Raghupati Bhat in

10 (2007) 14 SCC 667 11 (2009) 10 SCC 674 12 (1995) 6 SCC 225

preference to Shahzad Khan for the Gold Leafing work

in the Mysore Palace.

13. Two proceedings sprang from the said

incident. One registration of suo moto complaint by the

Lokayukta and the FIR being registered for the aforesaid

offences. The other, a report from the hands of the

Lokayukta on examination of those documents resulted

in a report being submitted to the Government seeking

entrustment of an inquiry in terms of the aforesaid

provisions of the Act. The Government in the cabinet

after receipt of 12(3) report sought a report from the

hands of the Deputy Commissioner, who was the

Director of the Palace Board and the Executive Officer of

the Palace Board.

14. Two reports were submitted by the Executive

Officer. Based upon the said reports, the cabinet took a

decision not to entrust the inquiry to the hands of the

Lokayukta, as sought by it in exercise of its power

under Section 12(4) of the Act. The decision taken by

the cabinet reads as follows:

"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃ. N.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ - 1 EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ:

1) UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå: COMPT/UPLOK/MYS/964/ 2013/DRE-4, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.11.2018.

2) ¹C¸ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹C¸ÀÄE 152 ¸ÉÃC« 2018, ¢£ÁAPÀ:30.03.2019

3) PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÁ¤C/G¤/ªÉÄÊCªÀÄA/D«/2019-20, ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.03.2020, PÁ¤C/G¤/ªÉÄÊCAA/C«/2020-21, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.08.2020 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¤C/G¤/ªÉÄÊCªÀÄA/D«/2020-21/414, ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.01.2021.

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:

ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå(1) gÀ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.11.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ²æà dªÀgÁdÄ ©£ï ¹zÀÝAiÀÄå, zÉêÀgÀ¸ÀºÀ½î, £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À°è ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀA§UÀ½UÉ a£ÀßzÀ ¯ÉÃ¥À£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ°è ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀ ²æà n.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1984gÀ PÀ®A 9gÀr vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ zÀÆjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ D¥Á¢vÀ C¢üPÁj¬ÄAzÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. CawªÀĪÁV zÀÆj£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, D¥Á¢vÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥Àt ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ½UÉ CfðzÁgÀjAzÀ ¥ÀæwgÀPÀëuÁ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ (Rejoinder) CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ;

In view of the above discussions, there is Prima facie material to attribute misconduct attracting initiation of Department inquiry against the following Respondents;

1. Sri T. S. Subramanya, Deputy Director, Mysore Palace Board, Mysuru.

2. Sri. B. R. Muralidhara Rao, the then Assistant Engineer, Mysore Palace Board, Mysore - Presently working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Administrative Training Institute, Mysuru.

3. Sri C. S. Rajashekaregowda, the then Technical Assistant, Panchayath Raj Engineering Circle, Mysuru - Presently retired and residing at No.9, Block No.22, SBM Layout, Srirampura II Stage, Mysuru - 570023

4. Sri Parashivamurthy, the then Assistant

Executive Engineer, Mysore Palace Board, Mysuru - Presently reitired and residing at No.27, KHB, 1st Stage, 1st Main Road, 4th Cross, Kuvempunagara, Mysuru - 570023.

5. Sri K.B. Eshwarappa, the then Accounts Superintendent, Mysore Palace Board, Mysore - Presently retired and residing at "Mathrushree Nilaya", Near Sri.Vivekanada B.Ed College, Hanjagondahalli Extension, 2nd Cross, Jajur Post, Arsikere, Hasana District - 573103.

Therefore, acting under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, this recommendation is made to the Competent Authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the above Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 and entrust the inquiry to this Authority in terms of Rule14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957.

Since the respondent 3 and 5 have retired from service, the Competent Authority shall initiate departmental inquiry against Respondent 3 and 5 under Rule 214(2)(b)(i) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ²æà ©.Dgï.ªÀÄÄgÀĽzsÀgÀgÁªï, ²æà ¹.J¸ï.gÁd±ÉÃRgÉÃUËqÀ, ²æÃ.PÉ.©.F±ÀégÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3)gÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.11.2018 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ, PÀæªÀĪÁV

¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.11.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æà n.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå(2)gÀ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

EzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå(3)gÀ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ:

From the above it is also observed that all procedures like;

1. Obtaining approval for works;

2. Obtaining exemption under 4G to work which are artistic in nature from the Government;

3. Formation of Committee to choose the right person for execution of work and evaluation of suitable candidates for this work. Hence all this has been done as per the rules and following the prescribed procedure.

4. The Agency has carried out the work in accordance with the details that he had been given at the time of selection by the Committee, like;

      •      Cleaning of pillars;
      •      Restoration of Pillars and
      •      Gold Leafing to Pillars in order
            and has completed the work in
            stipulated time.

The time limit was restricted to minimal days to ensure that the Agency is not unduly benefited by the fluctuation of Gold prices in International Market.

The Committee Members and other Officers working at the time have monitored the work to ensure the quality of the work which is evident even now. The work is done following all the related procedures and the quality of the work is still intact.

Moreover, as per the 12(3) report submitted by the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha, direct allegation have been made on the Deputy Director and other officers which is not correct. It is hereby submitted that all the decisions and projects were taken up after consulting with the technical committee formed and the proposal has been approved at the Government level and the necessary budget allocations were also provided by the Government. The Deputy Director of Mysore Palace Board is only the signing authority for the orders approved by the Board for execution and he does not have the power of decision making."

ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ 12(3) ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ C¥ÀÆtð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÆõÀ

¥ÀÆjvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ®A 12(3)gÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.11.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ , ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÁUÀÆ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß M¦à, UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ²æà n.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14(J) Cr E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.

¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹C¸ÀÄE 152 ¸Éà C« 2018, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-09-2021.

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1984gÀ

PÀ®A 12(3) gÀr ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è£À ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄìUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ²æà n.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ((ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14(J) Cr E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ DzÉò¹zÉ.

F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:¹/362/2021, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.09.2021 gÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è

(£ÁUÀ¥Àà J¸ï ¥ÀjÃl) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÆ-4).

EªÀjUÉ:

1) ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀĺÁ¯ÉÃR¥Á®gÀÄ (J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

3) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

4) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ, «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

5) ¤§AzsÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

6) PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ.

7) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ dAn PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð (¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄl) «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

8) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹C¸ÀÄE (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ), «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

9) ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁj - ²æà n.J¸ï.¸ÀħæºÀätå, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAqÀ½, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ

("£ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¨ÁQAiÉÆA¢UÉ").

10) ±ÁSÁ gÀPÀëPÀ PÀqÀvÀ/ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÀÄ."

15. The afore-quoted facts, as observed

hereinabove, particularly the order of the Government

dated 15-09-2021 that declines to entrust the

departmental inquiry to the hands of the Lokayukta as

sought by the Lokayukta, the Government in exercise of

its discretion available under sub-section (4) of Section

12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, these are all

subsequent developments. The criminal law was set in

motion in Crime No.7 of 2014. The allegations against

the petitioner are under Section 13(1)(C)(D)(ii) and (iii) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420

of the IPC. The trial, on the basis of the aforesaid

development cannot be interjected or interfered with.

16. The judgments relied on by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner were all concerning

a departmental inquiry being held, evidence in it being

let in, where the Government failed to prove the

allegations on the basis of evidence and consequently

due to lack of evidence exonerates the delinquent

official. Therefore, those would become cases where the

delinquent official has come out clean in the rigmarole

of a departmental inquiry.

17. The case at hand qua the developments

subsequent to registration of a FIR in Cr.No.7 of 2014

are with closure of the allegations without conduct of a

departmental enquiry, as the Government found it fit

not to entrust the enquiry to the hands of the

Lokayukta and sequentially closed it. There is no

enquiry held against the petitioner in which the

petitioner comes out clean, for the petitioner to contend

that the judgments relied on would squarely cover the

issue at hand.

18. Therefore, the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that if inquiry itself is found to

be not worthy to be commenced, the criminal

proceedings will have to be obliterated is too farfetched

a submission to sound acceptance. It is not and cannot

be disputed that the further investigation or a trial

would not move on without sanction for such

prosecution from the hands of the competent authority

and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the

competent authority while granting sanction would not

look into the aforesaid subsequent development closing

the departmental enquiry itself against the petitioner.

The case has not yet reached that stage. Therefore, at

this stage, I deem it appropriate not to interfere or

interject the further proceedings in Cr.No.7 of 2014.

19. With the aforesaid observations while

declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings in

Crime No.7 of 2014, the Writ Petition stands disposed

of.

In view of disposal of the writ petition,

I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG/BKP