[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ravichandre Gowda N.R vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 11.03.2026
R
Pronounced on : 27.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.2783 OF 2026 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAVICHANDRE GOWDA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O N.L.RACHE GOWDA,
R/AT 62/B, 5TH MAIN,
MARUTHI TEMPLE STREET,
NEAR NALPAK HOTEL, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 570 023.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2. THE UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (D.P.A.R.),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
NO.317, "PADMALAYA",
DEWANS ROAD, SHIVARAMPET,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 004.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI B.LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 26.05.2025
BEARING NO. CSUI 51 SAS 2022, PASSED BY THE R-2
HEREIN, WHICH IS PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-"A";
DIRECT THE R-2 HEREIN, TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER
SECTION 17(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988; DIRECT R-3 HEREIN, TO REGISTER THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
3

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order

dated 26-05-2025 passed by the 2nd respondent declining to grant

approval as sought by him under Section 17A of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)

in terms of an order passed by this Court on an earlier occasion.

2. Heard Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B. Lethif,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
4

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioner is said to be a Lawyer by profession and a

Social Activist. The backdrop and the fulcrum in the subject petition

dates back to a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy

Commissioner, Mysore District - an Officer of the Indian

Administrative Service - Smt. Rohini Sindhuri, with regard to waste

management and disposal activities being carried out across the

District and to ensure redressal of grievances/problems relating to

waste management in the District. It is said to have been decided

in the said meeting to ban use of plastic bags across the District

and further resolved to distribute eco-friendly cloth bags to all the

residents who would come within the precincts of Mysore City

Corporation and other local bodies.

3.2. The District Urban Development Cell, in furtherance of

the said resolution, issues a direction on 17-03-2021 wherein the

IEC funds to the tune of ₹10/- lakhs of Swatch Bharath Mission

specifically allocated for development in K.R.Nagar Gram Panchayat

are said to have been diverted towards purchase of eco-friendly

cloth bags. The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District issues
5

certain directions on 09-04-2021 for procurement of said bags

using various funds specifically allocated to different Corporations

and Gram Panchayats. The Karnataka Handloom Development

Corporation was issued a work order for procurement of both 5 Kg.

and 10 Kg capacity eco-friendly cloth bags at ₹52/- per bag

including GST. 14,71,458 bags were to be purchased at an

estimated cost of ₹7,65,15,816/-.

3.3. The District Urban Development Cell addresses a

communication to the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation that

certain funds belonging to the Corporation and other local bodies

were directed to be diverted immediately into the Bank account of

the Deputy Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose. The eco-

friendly bags were then procured by the Karnataka Handloom

Corporation as resolved and directed. It is the averment in the

petition that a complaint was made that eco-friendly bags that were

purchased, were being sold in retail market at ₹13/- per bag and

the bags of the same quality were being procured at a rate of ₹52/-

per bag, in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore

District. Based upon this, the withdrawal of funds from all the
6

projects and concentrating on procurement of eco-friendly bags

allegedly resulted in loss to the State exchequer to the tune of

₹7,55,00,000/-. This becomes the fulcrum of the complaint

registered by the present petitioner before the Superintendent of

Police of the then Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB') of Mysore District.

3.4. Based upon the prima facie material available in the

complaint, the ACB, Bengaluru communicates to the Government,

Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms ('DPAR') on

17-12-2021 seeking approval as obtaining under Section 17A of the

Act. In terms of a particular standard operating procedure that was

put in place by Government of India, time was taken to consider

approval or otherwise. Finally, on 19-09-2022 the approval sought

for by the ACB comes to be rejected. The rejection of which comes

to challenged before this Court by the present petitioner in Writ

Petition No.2805 of 2025. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by

order dated 20-02-2025 allows the petition, quashes the

communication impugned therein and remits the matter back to the

hands of the Government for re-consideration afresh, within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The result to
7

the order passed by this Court is passing of the impugned order on

26-05-2025. The petitioner now calls in question the order dated

26-05-2025 on the score that it is verbatim similar to the order that

was passed earlier and quashed by the coordinate Bench of this

Court.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONER:

4. The learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde appearing for the

petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended

to the petition to demonstrate that the order does not bear any

application of mind. A coordinate Bench of this Court had clearly

held that a fresh order has to be passed, as the order that was

challenged earlier suffered from want of application of mind. He

would further contend that the officer against whom approval was

sought was proceeded departmentally on the same set of facts. In

the departmental enquiry the officer has been exonerated. The

exoneration is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned

counsel would submit that, that cannot be a reason for declining
8

approval under Section 17A of the Act, as mere closure of

departmental enquiry would not mean that criminal proceedings

cannot even be commenced. He would seek to place reliance upon

several judgments of the Apex Court, all of which would bear

consideration in the course of the order qua their relevance.

THE STATE:

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

Sri B.N.Jagadeesha has placed the entire file concerning the

allegations, holding of departmental inquiry and the order passed

thereto. He would submit that what can be gathered from the

impugned order is that approval under Section 17A of the Act is

declined only on the ground that the officer has been proceeded

departmentally and the departmental inquiry is in favour of the

officer. He would leave the decision to the hands of this Court, as

submitting anything on merits at this nascent stage is not called

for.
9

THE LOKAYUKTA:

6. The learned counsel Sri B. Lethif would submit that at this

juncture the Lokayukta is only a formal party and, therefore, he

would leave the decision to the Court.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

CONSIDERATION:

THE GENESIS:

8. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute, they would

require little more reiteration/elaboration. Under the Chairmanship

of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District a meeting was

convened on 04-03-2021. The subject of the meeting was how to

handle waste management and considering banning of plastic bags

in the District. It was resolved to ban plastic bags in the District, a

laudable object, but what was brought in becomes the fulcrum of

the allegation. The agenda item No.3 deals with this subject. It

reads as follows:
10

" ಷಯ 03: ೆಯ ಎ ಾ ನಗರಸ ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆಗಳ ಾ ಯ ಾ ೇಧವನು$
ಪ&'ಾಮ)ಾ&*ಾ+ ,ಾ&-ೊ ಸುವ ಬ-ೆ0.

ನಗರ ಸ ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆಗಳ ಾ ಯ ಾ ೇಧವನು$ ಪ&'ಾಮ)ಾ&*ಾ+
,ಾ&-ೊ ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ )ೈ-ೊಂಡ ಕ4ಮಗಳ ಬ-ೆ0 5ಾನ ಾ6)ಾ&ಗಳ7 ವರ ೕಡುವಂ8ೆ
ಸೂ9 ದರು.

ಆಯುಕರು, <ೖಸೂರು ಮ=ಾನಗರ ಾ )ೆ, <ೖಸೂರುರವರು 5ಾತ?ಾಡು8ಾ. ಈ-ಾಗ ೇ
<ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಾ AೇBಗಳನು$ 5ಾಡುCದುD ಎE.ಡಬೂF.ಎಂ Gೈ ಾದ
ಅಳವI )ೊಳJ ಾದಂ8ೆ ದಂಡ 6ಸ ಾಗುCKೆ. ಾ Gಾ Lಗಳ ಬದಲು ಬNೆ Gಾ Lಗಳನು$
ಉಪPೕ+ಸುವ ಕು&ತು ಅ&ವQ ಮೂI &*ಾRC ದರದ ಾ )ೆRಂದ ೇ ಬNೆ ಯ
)ೈ9ೕಲಗಳನು$ ತ&ಸಲು ಕ4ಮವSಸ ಾ+ರುವQKಾ+ C ದರು =ಾಗೂ ಕTೆದ ಾ ನ <ೖಸೂರು
ನಗರ ಾ ಯ ಸು5ಾರು 04 ಮದು ೆ ಸ5ಾರಂಭಗಳನು$ ಹ ರು ಮದು ೆ ಪ&ಕಲW?ೆಯ
5ಾಡ ಾ+ದುD ಮುಂXನ Xನಗಳ ಇನು$ =ೆ9Zನ ಸಂ[ೆ ಯ ನ\ೆಸಲು ಅ&ವQ ಮೂIಸ ಾಗುವQKಾ+
C ದರು.

ಇತAೆ ನಗರಸ]ೆ, ಪQರಸ]ೆಯ ೌAಾಯುಕರು/ಮು[ಾ 6)ಾ&ಗಳ7 =ಾಗೂ ಪ&ಸರ
ಅ_ಯಂತರರು ತಮ` ನಗರಸ ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆ ಾ ಯ ಾ AೇBಗಳನು$ 5ಾಡುCದುD
ಎE.ಡಬೂF.ಎಂ Gೈ ಾದ ಅಳವI )ೊಳJ ಾದಂ8ೆ ದಂಡ 6ಸ ಾಗುCKೆ. ಾ Gಾ Lಗಳ
ಬದಲು ಬNೆ Gಾ Lಗಳನು$ ಉಪPೕ+ಸುವ ಕು&ತು ಅ&ವQ ಮೂIಸ ಾಗುCKೆ ಆದರೂ
aೇ.50.00ರಷು ಾ ಬಳ)ೆಯನು$ ತ\ೆಗಟ ಲು ಾಧ ಾಗುCಲ. ಉ8ಾWದ?ೆ ಹಂತದ cೕ ಮತು
ಸಗಟು ಸರಬAಾಜು ಆಗದಂ8ೆ ತ\ೆಗಟ ಲು ಕ4ಮವSಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಇ ಾ[ೆ-ೆ ಸೂ9ಸುವಂ8ೆ
)ೋ&ದರು.

ಈ ಬ-ೆ0 ಚ9f <ೖಸೂರು ೆಯ ಎ ಾ ನಗರ =ಾಗೂ -ಾ45ಾಂತರ ಪ4Kೇಶಗ -ೆ
<ೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಮುಖ 5ಾರುಕNೆ ಯ ಸಗಟು 5ಾAಾಟ ಮ -ೆಗ ಂದ ಸರಬAಾಜು ಆಗುCದುD ಸದ&
ಮ -ೆಗಳನು$ 5ಾ ನ ಯಂತ4ಣ ಮಂಡ ಯವAೊಂX-ೆ Kಾ 5ಾI ಅವರ ರುದj ಕ4ಮ)ೈ-ೊಳJಲು
ಸೂ9 ದರು.

ಈ kನ ಏ 4m 05 &ಂದ ನಗರಸ ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆಗಳ ಾ ಯ ಾ ಬಳ)
ಬಳ)ೆಯನು$
ೆಯನು$
ಪ&'ಾಮ)ಾ&*ಾ+ ತ\ೆಗಟ ಲು ಪnಣf ಪ45ಾಣದ ೇಧ 5ಾಡಲು ಆKೇoಸ ಾಗುವQದು. ಈ
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪ*ಾfಯ ಾ+ ಬNೆ Gಾ Lಗಳನು$ ಉಪPೕ+ಸಲು ಅ&ವQ ಮೂIಸುವಂ8ೆ ಸೂ9 ದರು.
ಆದAೆ ಕೂಡ ೇ ಾವfಜ ಕರು ಸದ& ವ ವ ೆ-ೆ ಒಳಪIಸುವ kನ ಪ4C ಮ?ೆಗ ಗೂ ಸq ಸ=ಾಯ
11

ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಹPೕಗKೊಂX-ೆ ಬNೆ Gಾ Lಗಳನು$ ನಗರಸ]ೆ, ಪQರಸ]ೆ ವCRಂದ ಾ4ರಂ_ಕ ಾ+
ಉ9ತ ಾ+ ತ&ಸಲು ಕ4ಮ)ೈ-ೊಳ7Jವಂ8ೆ ಸೂ9ಸ ಾRತು.

(ಕ4ಮ: ಆಯುಕರು, <ೖಸೂರು ಮ=ಾನಗರ ಾ )ೆ, <ೖಸೂರು, ೆಯ ನಗರಸ ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆಗಳ
ೌAಾಯುಕರು/ಮು[ಾ 6)ಾ&ಗಳ7 =ಾಗೂ ಪ&ಸರ ಅ_ಯಂತರರರು)

<ೕ ನ ಎ ಾ ಷಯಗಳ7 Aಾstೕಯ ಹ ರು ?ಾ *ಾ6ಕರಣ)ೆu ಒಳಪk ರುವQದ&ಂದ ಗಂ_ೕರ ಾ+
ಪ&ಗv ಸೂ9 ದ X?ಾಂಕKೊಳ-ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಅ6)ಾ&ಗಳ7 ಸೂಕ w4*ಾPೕಜ?ೆ =ಾಗೂ
ಅಂKಾಜುಪk ಗTೆx ಂX-ೆ ಸೂ9 ದ X?ಾಂಕದಂದು ಸ]ೆ-ೆ =ಾಜAಾಗಲು ಸೂ9ಸ ಾRತು.

ವಂದ?ೆಗTೆx ಂX-ೆ ಸ]ೆಯನು$ ಮು)ಾಯ-ೊ ಸ ಾRತು.
ಸS /-
ಾ6)ಾ&ಗಳ7,
<ೖಸೂರು ೆ. <ೖಸೂರು"

It was resolved that plastic bags be completely banned in Mysore

District to be replaced by eco-friendly cloth bags. How to procure

eco-friendly cloth bags and what capacity is in the Official

Memorandum issued by the District Urban Development Cell in the

office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District. The Official

Memorandum reads as follows:

"ಸಂ. ಮು (4)ಎE.ಡಬೂF -ಎಂ/ಐಇ /w4Pೕ/)ೆ.ಆ{.ನ./ .ಆ{.-36/2020-21
X?ಾಂಕ: 17-03-2021

ಅ6ಕೃತ ~ಾಪನ

ಷಯ: )ೆ. ಆ{. ನಗರ ಪQರಸ]ೆಯ 2020-21 ?ೇ ಾ ನ • ಇ
ಚಟುವk)ೆಗ -ೆ ಎE. •. ಎಂ. 2020-21 ?ೇ ಾ ನ Pೕಜ?ೆಯI
12

•ಡುಗ\ೆ-ೊ ರುವ ಅನುKಾನದ w4*ಾ Pೕಜ?ೆ-ೆ ಅನು€ೕದ?ೆ
ೕಡುವ ಬ-ೆ0.

ಉ ೇಖ1 5ಾನ Kೇfಶಕರು, ೌAಾಡ ತ •ೇfಶ?ಾಲಯ, Gೆಂಗಳxರುರವರ
ಅ6ಕೃತ ~ಾಪನ ಸಂ[ೆ ೌ /ಘವ / ಎE. •.ಎಂ/6/2020, X?ಾಂಕ:
14-9-2020

2 ಮು[ಾ 6)ಾ&, ಪQರಸ]ೆ )ೆ.ಆ{. ನಗರರವರ ಪತ4 ಸಂ[ೆ
ಪQಸಕೃ/ಐಇ / ಾ5ಾನ ಸ]ೆ/ 02/2020-21 X?ಾಂಕ: 05.02.2021
(F ಕ„ೇ& qೕಕೃC X?ಾಂಕ : 15.02.2021)

3 X?ಾಂಕ : 22.01.2021 ರಂದು ನ\ೆದ )ೆ.ಆ{. ನಗರ ಪQರಸ]ೆ
)ೌ ...m ಸ]ೆಯ ಸ]ಾ ನ\ಾವ .

4 X?ಾಂಕ 04.03.2021 ಮತು 15.03.2021 ರಂದು 5ಾನ
ಾ6)ಾ&ಗಳ ಅಧ †8ೆಯ ನ\ೆದ ಘನ 8ಾ ಜ ವಸು ವfಹ'ೆ
ಯಮಗ¼ÀÄ -2016 ನು$ ಸಮಪfಕ ಾ+ ಅನು ಾ ನ-ೊ ಸುವ ಕು&ತ
ಸ]ೆಯ ಸ]ಾ ನಡವ .
*****

ಪ4 ಾವ?ೆ.

ಮು[ಾ 6)ಾ&, ಪQರಸ]ೆ, )ೆ.ಆ{. ನಗರರವರು ಉ ೇಖ (2) ರ ಪತ4ದ , ಉ ೇಖ (1) ರ
5ಾˆಯ ೌAಾಡ ತ Kೇfಶ?ಾಲಯದ ಅ6ಕೃತ ~ಾಪನದಂ8ೆ )ೆ.ಆ{. ನಗರ ಪQರಸ]ೆ-ೆ ಎE. •.
ಎಂ. Pೕಜ?ೆಯI •ಡುಗ\ೆ-ೊ ಸ ಾ+ರುವ ಅನುKಾನ)ೆu ಈ )ೆಳಕಂಡಂ8ೆ w4*ಾPೕಜ?ೆಯನು$
ದjಪI ಅನು€ೕದ?ೆ-ಾ+ ಸ ರು8ಾAೆ.

w4*ಾ
w4*ಾPೕಜ?
ೕಜ?ೆ ವರ
€ತ ರೂ ಲ†ಗಳ

PÀæ.ಸಂ. ಐ. ಇ. . )ಾಯfಕ4ಮದ ವರ €ತ (ರೂ. ಲ†ಗಳ )

01 ಕ„ೇ&ಯ ಧ ಐ. ಇ. . )ಾಯfಕ4ಮಗ -ೆ 0.60

Š4,ೆಕ { ಮತು ¹ÌçÃ£ï (wall mount kit, 20
mts cable, 8X6 feet screen, 12 A
portable public address system with 2
wireless mic and laptop along with
13

supply installation and commissioning
of the projector system ) ಖ ೕ ಸಲು
02 ಮ ಾ ಸ ಸ ಾಯ ಗುಂಪ ಗಳ ಸಹ ಾರ ೊಂ ೆ ಪ ರಸ ೆ 1.50

ಾ ಯ ! ಪ"# ಮ$ೆ ಮ$ೆಗ% ೆ ೇ& 'ೕ( )ಾ ಜ
+ಂಗಡ-ೆ, +.ೇ ಾ ಾಗೂ ಇತ1ೆ ಸ ಚ3)ೆಗಳ ಬ ೆ5
6ಾವ8ಜ'ಕ ೆ ಅ ವ ಮೂ(ಸುವ ದು (House to
house awareness on waste segregation
and handling through private agency
/NGO/SHG

03 ಸ ಾ8 ಕ<ೇ ಕಟ>ಡ, @ಾರುಕAೆ>, §¸ï '.ಾBಣ ಾಗೂ 0.70

ಇತ1ೆ 6ಾವ8ಜ'ಕ ಪ" ೇಶಗಳ ! ೋEೆ ಬರಹ ಬ1ೆFಸಲು

04 ಸ ಚ3 ಸ ೆ8Gಣ -2021 Hಾ ನJ, ಕರಪತ", KೕಚJ 2.15

ಮು "ಸಲು (printing of banners, phomplets &
other IEC (materials for SS- 2021)

05 ಪ ರಸ ಾ ಕ<ೇ ಯ ! ಎM ಇ ( ಘಟಕ ಅಳವ(ಸಲು 2.20
06 Oಾ.ಾ ಾ.ೇಜು + ಾ P8ಗಳQ/ಸ ಸ ಾಯ ಗುಂಪ ಗ% ೆ 1.00

ತರHೇ#/ಅ ವ ಮೂ(ಸಲು
07 ಸR%ೕಯ ಸು B ಾ 'ಗಳ ! )ಾ ಜ +.ೇ ಾ ಕು ತು 0.90

Sಾ 1ಾತು ಪ"ಕ&ಸಲು
08 ಘನ )ಾ ಜ 'ವ8ಹ-ೆ ಉಪUೕVಸುವವರ ಶುಲW ಾಗೂ 0.95

ದಂಡ +Xಸುವ ಉಪ 'ಯಮ, ೆSೆY ಅXಸೂಚ$ೆ ಪ"#
ಮುದ"ಣ.

ಒಟು> 10.00

ಮು[ಾ X ಾ , ಪ ರಸ ೆ, ೆ. ಆJ. ನಗರರವರು ಸ !]ರುವ ಪ"6ಾವ$ೆಯನು^
ಪ _ೕ ಸ.ಾV, ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ (1) ' ೇ8ಶ$ಾಲಯದ ಅXಕೃತ aಾಪನದ ! ೆ.ಆJ. ನಗರ ಪ ರಸ ೆಯ
ಐಇ] ಚಟುವ& ೆಗ% ೆ ರೂ.10.00 ಲG ಅನು ಾನ cಡುಗEೆdಾVದುB, ಸದ ಅನು ಾನ ೆW
]ದeಪ(]ರುವ ಈ gೕಲWಂಡ h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆಯ ಬದ ೆ ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ (4) ರ ಸ ಾ ನEಾವ%ಯ !
ನಗರಸR%ೕಯ ಸಂ6ೆRಗಳ ಐಇ] ಚಟುವ& ೆ ಗ% ಾV cಡುಗEೆ ೊ%ಸ.ಾVರುವ ಅನು ಾನ ೆW ]ದeಪ(]
ಸ !ಸ.ಾVರುವ h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆಗಳನು^ i.ಾ! ನಗ1ಾjವೃ e ೋಶದ ಹಂತದ !kೕ ಪ ಷW ]
14

i.ೆ!ಯ ಾ ಯ ! mಾ!]>n 'oೇಧವನು^ ಪ -ಾಮ ಾ dಾV ಅನುoಾ>ನ ೊ%ಸುವ ಸಲು ಾV
ಪ ರಸ ೆ ಾ ಯ ಪ"# ಮ$ೆ ಗ% ೆ ಸಣq, ಮಧ ಮ ಾಗೂ ೊಡr ಾತ"ದ ಪ ಸರ 6ೆ^ೕ ಬAೆ> Hಾ s
ಗಳನು^ ಖ ೕ ] +ತ ಸಲು h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆ ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ ೆ ಸ !ಸುವಂ)ೆ @ಾನ i.ಾ!X ಾ ಗಳQ
ಸೂu]ರ)ಾ1ೆ.
ಆ ೇಶ

ಮು[ಾ X ಾ , ಪ ರಸ ೆ, ೆ.ಆJ. ನಗರದವರು ಸ !]ರುವ ಪ"6ಾವ$ೆಯನು^ ಪ _ೕ ಸ.ಾV
ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ (4) ರ ಸ ಾ ನಡವ%ಯಂ)ೆ ೆ.ಆJ. ನಗರ ಪ ರಸ ೆಯ ಐಇ] ಚಟುವ& ೆಗ% ೆ
cಡುಗEೆdಾVರುವ ರೂ. 10.00 ಲGಗ% ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆ ೆ ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ (1) ಅXಕೃತ
aಾಪನದ !ನ ಷರತುಗಳಂ)ೆ ಮತು ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ (4) ರ ಸ ಾ ನEಾವ%ಯಂ)ೆ ಕ"ಮವ ಸುವ ಾಗು ಸದ
h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆ ೆ ಸGಮ mಾ"X ಾರ ಂದ ಆಡ%)ಾತvಕ ಮತು )ಾಂ#"ಕ ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ ಪEೆಯುವ
ಷರತು ೊಳಪ(] ಾಗೂ ಸ ಾ8ರದ ಸು)ೋ.ೆ ಮತು @ಾಗ8ಸೂu ೕ)ಾ ಅನುoಾwನ ೊ%ಸಲು
ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ 'ೕ( ೆ.
h"dಾ
h"dಾ Uೕಜ$
ೕಜ$ೆ +ವರ
tತ ರೂ ಲG ಗಳ !
PÀæ.ಸಂ. ಐ. ಇ. ]. ಾಯ8ಕ"ಮದ +ವರ tತ

01 mಾ!]>n 'oೇಧವನು^ ಪ -ಾಮ ಾ dಾV 10.00

ಅನುoಾ>ನ ೊ%ಸುವ ಸಲು ಾV ಪ ರಸ ೆ ಾ ಯ ಪ"#
ಮ$ೆಗ% ೆ ಸಣq ಮಧ ಮ ಾಗೂ ೊಡr ಾತ"ದ ಪ ಸರ
6ೆ^ೕ ಬAೆ> Hಾ sಗಳನು^ ಖ ೕ ] +ತ ಸಲು

ಷರತುಗಳQ :

1. ಈ h"dಾUೕಜ$ೆಯ ! ಅನುtೕದ$ೆdಾVರುವ ಾಮ ಾ / ಾಯ8ಕ"ಮದ ಅಂ ಾಜು
ಪ&> ೆ ಸGಮ mಾ"X ಾರ ಂದ ಆಡ%)ಾತvಕ ಮತು )ಾಂ#"ಕ ಮಂಜೂ1ಾ# ಪEೆದು ೊಂಡು
'ಯ@ಾನು6ಾರ ಅನುoಾwನ ೊ%ಸಲು ಕ"ಮ ವ ಸುವ ದು.

2. ಅನು ಾನವನು^ ಸ ಚ3 ಾರx yಷz ಅ(ಯ ! ಐ. ಇ. ]. ಚಟವ& ೆಗ% ಾV @ಾತ"
ಬಳಸತಕWದುB. ಾಗೂ ಬಳ]ದ tತ ೆW 'ಗXತ ನಮೂ$ೆಯ ! ( ೆ. ಎ{. ]. 187)
i.ಾ!X ಾ ಗಳ gೕ®Ä ರುಜು+$ೊಂ ೆ ಬಳ ೆ ಪ"@ಾಣ ಪತ"ವನು^ ಸ !ಸುವ ದು.
15

3. ಅನು ಾನವನು^ 1ಾ|}ೕಯ ನಪ#" ೆಗಳ ! Sಾ ೕ1ಾvÀÄ ಪ"ಕ&ಸುವ ಾಗೂ 1ಾ|}ೕಯ n.«
@ಾಧ ಮಗಳ ಐ. ಇ. ]. ಚಟುವ& ೆಗಳನೂ^ ಪ"ಚುರ ಪ(ಸುವ ಾಹನಗಳ ಖ ೕ ,
ಕಟ>ಡಗಳ '@ಾ8ಣ ಮತು 'ವ8ಹ-ೆ. ೇತನ mಾವ#, ೕ•ೋಪಕರಣಗಳ ಖ ೕ ೆ
ಇ)ಾ ಗ% ೆ ಬಳಸHಾರ ಾVರುತ ೆ.

4. ಪ ರಸ ೆ ಾ ಯ ಪ"#ೕ ಮ$ೆಗ%ೕಗೂ ಪ ಸರ 6ೆ^ೕ ಬAೆ> Hಾ sಗಳನು^ ಖ ೕ ]
+ತ ]ದ ನಂತರ ಅನು ಾನ ಉ%)ಾಯ ಾದ ! ಇತ1ೆ ಅವಶ ಕ ಐಇ] ಚಟುವ& ೆಗ% ೆ
ಸ ಾ8ರದ @ಾಗ8ಸೂu ೕ)ಾ h"dಾ Uೕಜ$ೆ ]ದeಪ(], ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ ೆ ಸ !ಸುವ ದು
ಾಗು ಅನು ಾನ ಕ(gdಾದ ! ನಗರಸR%ೕಯ ಸಂ6ೆR 'XFಂದ ೆಚು€ವ tತವನ^
ಭ ಸುವ ದು.
(ಕ.&. i. ಅ. gೕ)
ಸ /-
i.ಾ!X ಾ ರವರ ಪರ ಾV
gೖಸೂರು i.ೆ!, gೖಸೂರು"

The price of each bag both of 5 Kg and 10 Kg is projected to be at

₹52/- per bag. A direction comes to be issued then by the office of

the Deputy Commissioner on 09-04-2021 for procurement of bags.

The direction reads as follows:

"ಸಂ: ಮು'](4) iನ ೋ/gೖ.i/ಎ‡cಎಂ/ಐ.ಇ.]/2020-21 $ಾಂಕ: 09-04-2021.

ಾdಾ8 ೇಶ

+ಷಯ: ಪ ಸರ 6ೆ^ೕ ಬAೆ> Hಾ sಗಳನು^ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ5.

ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ: 1 ) ಈ ಕ<ೇ ಸಮಸಂ[ೆ ಪತ" $ಾಂಕ: 23-03-2021.
2) ಮುಖ ಾಯ8' ಾ8ಹಕ ಅX ಾ , i.ಾ! ಪಂˆಾಯx,
gೖಸೂರು i.ೆ! gೖಸೂರುರವರ ಪತ" ಸಂ[ೆ :
r.Dgï.r.J(2)/NRLM/Convergence/53/2020-21
$ಾಂಕ: 08-04-2021.
16

3) ವ ವ6ಾRಪಕರ ' ೇ8ಶಕರು, ಕ$ಾ8ಟಕ ೈಮಗ5 ಅjವೃ e 'ಗಮ
'ಯyತ, ಹುಬ‰%Šರವರ ಪತ" ಸಂ[ೆ : ಕPÉÊ
ಅ'/ವ '/@ಾ(ಸಗಟು)/2020-21 $ಾಂಕ: 31-03-2021.

4) ದರ ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ $ಾಂಕ: 08-04-2021.

****
gೕಲWಂಡ +ಷಯ ೆW ಸಂಬಂX]ದಂ)ೆ gೖಸೂರು i.ಾ! ಾ ಯ ! ಪ ಸರ 6ೆ^ೕ ಬAೆ>
Hಾ sಗಳನು^ ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ(1)ರ ಪತ"ದಂ)ೆ 4 ೆ‹ +$ಾF# ಇರುವ ತಮv 'ಗಮ ೆW ಅಗತ ದರ ಾಗೂ
' 8ಷ>)ೆ (Specification)ಗಳನು^ 'ಗXಪ(] ಸ !ಸಲು ೋರ.ಾVತು. ಈ gೕ1ೆ ೆ )ಾವ
ಸ !]ರುವ ದರಗಳನು^ ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ(4)ರಂ)ೆ ಪ"# Hಾ s ೆ ರೂ 52.00(i.ಎ‡.&. 6ೇ ದಂ)ೆ)ಗಳನು^
'ಗXಪ(] ಅನುtೕದ$ೆ 'ೕಡ.ಾVದುB ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಪ"@ಾಣಗಳಂ)ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡಲು
ೋರ.ಾV ೆ.

ಸR%ೕಯ ಸಂ6ೆR ಾ ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡHೇ ಾದ Hಾ sಗಳ +ವರ
17

ಮುಂದುವ1ೆದಂ)ೆ ಉ.ೆ!ೕಖ(2)ರ $ಾಂಕ: 08-04-2021ರ ಪತ"ದ ! gೖಸೂರು i.ಾ!
ಪಂˆಾF# ಾ ಯ ! ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡHೇ ಾVರುವ +ವರಗಳQ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ# ೆ.

i.ಾ! ಪಂˆಾಯx/ ಾ"ಮ ಪಂˆಾF# ಾ ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡHೇ ಾದ Hಾ sಗಳ +ವರ

ೊ"ೕŒೕಕೃತ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು ಪnÖ

5 ೆ.i. Hಾ sಗಳ Hೇ( ೆ 10 ೆ.i. Hಾ sಗಳ Hೇ( ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡHೇ ಾVರುವ
ಒಟು> Hಾ s ಸಂ[ೆ
7.35,729.00 7,35,729.00 14,71,458.00

ಸೂu]ರುವ ಪ @ಾಣಗಳQ )ಾ)ಾW ಕ ಾVದುB ಇನೂ^ ೆu€ನ ಸಂ[ೆ ಯ ಅವಶ ಕ+ದB !
ಇ ೇ ಅನುtೕ ತ ದರದಂ)ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡಲು ಸೂuಸು)ಾ, mಾ!]>n 'oೇಧ
ಪ -ಾಮ ಾ dಾV ಅನುoಾwನ ೊ%ಸಲು ಪ ಸರ 6ೆ^ೕ Hಾ sಗಳ ಅವಶ ಕ)ೆ ಇರುವ ದ ಂದ ಆದ )ೆ
gೕ1ೆ ೆ ತು)ಾ8V Hಾ sಗಳನು^ ಅಗತ ಗುಣಮಟ> ಪ _ೕಲ$ಾ ವರ Uಂ ೆ ಸರಬ1ಾಜು @ಾಡಲು
ಆ ೇ_] ೆ.
18

ಸ /-
ಸ ಾಯಕ ಾಯ ಾಲಕ ಆಚಯಂತರರು (ಪ ಸರ)
ನಗರಸ ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು.
ಸ /-
ಾ! ಾ ರವರ ಪರ#ಾ$
%ೖಸೂರು ೆ, %ೖಸೂರು"
UÉ,
ವ(ವ)ಾ*ಪಕರ +,ೇ ಶಕರು,
ಕ/ಾ ಟಕ ೈಮಗ2 ಅ4ವೃ67 +ಗಮ +ಯ8ತ,
9:ಯದ< + /ೇ ಾರ ಭವನ, >,ಾ(ನಗರ,
ಹುಬABC

ಪ:DಯನುE:

1) ಮುಖ( ಾಯ +#ಾ ಹಕ ಅ! ಾ , ಾ ಪಂGಾಯH, %ೖಸೂರು ೆ %ೖಸೂರುರವರ
Iಾ DJಾ$ ಾಗೂ ಮುಂ6ನ ಕ:ಮ ಾK$.
2) ಆಯುಕLರು %ೖಸೂರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾM ೆ %ೖಸೂರುರವರ Iಾ DJಾ$ ಾಗೂ ಮುಂ6ನ
ಕ:ಮ ಾK$..
3) ೌOಾಯುಕLರು, ನಗರಸ ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಮತುL ಹುಣಸೂರುರವರ Iಾ DJಾ$ ಾಗೂ
ಮುಂ6ನ ಕ:ಮ ಾK$.
4) ಮುQಾ(! ಾ ಪRರಸ ೆ, ೆ.ಆS.ನಗರ, ಬನೂEರು, D.ನರTೕಪRರ, 9 UಾಪಟVಣ ಮತುL
ೆW.X. ೋYೆ ಪಟVಣ ಪಂGಾZD ಸರಗೂರುರವರ Iಾ DJಾ$ ಾಗೂ ಮುಂ6ನ
ಕ:ಮ ಾK$.
5) ೆಯ ಎ ಾ Jಾ:ಮ ಪಂGಾZD ಅ4ವೃ67 ಅ! ಾ ಗಳ Iಾ DJಾ$ ಾಗೂ ಮುಂ6ನ
ಕ:ಮ ಾK$."

After the said direction, funds that were belonging to other local

bodies meant for development purpose were diverted to this

purpose and were directed to be deposited into the account of the
19

Deputy Commissioner. The communication dated 30-06-2021 reads

as follows:

"ಸಂ: ಮು+T(4)/ ನ ೋ/%ೖ. /ಎ^_ಎಂ/ಐಇT/2020-21 6/ಾಂಕ: 30.06.2021

UÉ,

1. ಆಯುಕLರು, %ೖಸೂರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾM ೆ, %ೖಸೂರು.

2. ೌOಾಯುಕLರು, ನಗರಸ ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ಮತುL ಹುಣಸೂರು.

3. ಮುQಾ(! ಾ . ಪRರಸ ೆ. ೆ.ಆS.ನಗರ, ಬನೂEರು. D.ನರTೕಪRರ. 9 UಾಪಟVಣ ಮತುL
ೆW.X. ೋYೆ ಾಗೂ ಪಟVಣ ಪಂGಾZD ಸರಗೂರು.

Iಾನ(Oೆ,

>ಷಯ : ಸcಚd ಾರH 8ಷe fೕಜ/ೆಯX ನಗರಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳ ಐಇT
ಚಟುವg ೆಗBJಾ$ _ಡುಗhೆJೊBಸ ಾ$ರುವ ಅನು,ಾನವನುE Iಾನ(
ಾ! ಾ ಗಳ ಎ^._.ಎಂ (ಸcಚd ಾರH 8ಷe) QಾiೆJೆ
ಜ%JೊBಸುವ ಬJೆ2.

ಉ ೇಖ:1. Iಾನ( +,ೇ ಶಕರು, ೌOಾಡBತ +,ೇ ಶ/ಾಲಯ
kೆಂಗಳlರುರವರ mಾಪನ ಸಂQೆ(: ೌ+/ಘವ+/ ಎ^._.ಎಂ /6/2020,
6/ಾಂಕ: 14.09.2020.

2. 6/ಾಂಕ:04.03.2021, 15.03.2021 ಾಗೂ 19.03.2021
ರಂದು Iಾನ( ಾ! ಾ ಗಳ ಅಧ(piೆಯM ನhೆದ ಘನiಾ(ಜ( ವಸುL
+ವ ಹqೆಯ +ಯಮಗಳr-2016ನುE ಸಮಪ ಕ#ಾ$
ಅನುsಾVನJೊBಸುವ ಕು ತ ಸ ೆಯ ಸ ಾ ನhಾವB.

3. ಈ ಕuೇ ಸಮ ಸಂQೆ( ಾUಾ ,ೇಶ 6/ಾಂಕ: 09.04.2021.

*****

%ೕಲKಂಡ >ಷಯ ೆK ಸಂಬಂ!Tದಂiೆ, ಉ ೇಖ(1)ರ ೌOಾಡBತ +,ೇ ಶ/ಾಲಯದ
ಅ!ಕೃತ mಾಪನದM %ೖಸೂರು ೆಯ ನಗರಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳ ಐಇT ಚಟುವg ೆಗBJಾ$ ಸcಚd
20

ಾರH 8ಷe fೕಜ/ೆಯX ಒಟುV ರೂ. 172.50 ಲp ಅನು,ಾನವನುE _ಡುಗhೆJೊBಸ ಾ$ರುತL,ೆ.
ಸದ ಅನು,ಾನ ೆK ಉ ೇಖ(2)ರ ಸ ಾ ನhಾವBಗಳಂiೆ ೆUಾದ(ಂತ ಾTVw +sೇಧವನುE
ಪ qಾಮ ಾ Uಾ$ ಅನುsಾVನJೊBಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಐಇT ಚಟುವg ೆಗBJಾ$ ಹಂx ೆUಾ$ರುವ
ಅನು,ಾನದM ನಗರಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳ #ಾ(9Lಯ ಪ:D ಮ/ೆಗೂ ಎರಡು (ಒಂದು ಮಧ(ಮ ಮತುL ಒಂದು
,ೊಡy) ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳನುE >ತ ಸಲು Tದ7ಪXಸ ಾದ {:Uಾfೕಜ/ೆಗBJೆ
ಅನು|ೕದ/ೆ +ೕಡ ಾ$ರುತL,ೆ. ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳನುE ಖ ೕ6ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ 4 ೆW
>/ಾZD ಇರುವ ಕ/ಾ ಟಕ ೈಮಗ2 ಅ4ವೃ67 +ಗಮ +ಯ8ತರವ ಂದ ದರಪgV ಾಗೂ iಾಂD:ಕ
+6 ಷViೆಗಳನುE ಪhೆದು ಪ:D ಒಂದು ಬYೆV kಾ($Jೆ ರೂ.52.00/-ಗಳಂiೆ ನಗರಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗBJೆ
ಾಮಟVದM ಸರಬOಾಜು Iಾಡಲು ಉ ೇಖ(3)ರಂiೆ Iಾನ( ಾ! ಾ ಗಳr ಾUಾ ,ೇಶ
+ೕXರುiಾLOೆ.
{:Uಾfೕಜ/ೆ >ವರ
|ತL ರೂ.ಲpಗಳM
PÀæ. ¸ÀA. ನಗರಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ* ೆಸರು ಅನು|ೕ6ತ |ತL

01. %ೖಸೂರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾM ೆ
ಐಇT-100.00 ಮತುL
15 £ÉÃ ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ-134.00

02. ನಂಜನಗೂಡು ನಗರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-20.00
03. ಹುಣಸೂರು ನಗರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-10.00
04. ೆ.ಆS.ನಗರ ಪRರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-10.00
05. ಬನೂEರು ಪRರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-05.00
06. D.ನರTೕಪRರ ಪRರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-05.00
07. 9 Uಾಪಟಣ ಪRರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-10.00
08. ೆW.X. ೋYೆ ಪRರಸ ೆ ಐಇT-10.00
09. ಸರಗೂರು ಪಟVಣ ಪಂGಾZD ಐಇT-02.50

Oಾ„ಾ(ದ(ಂತ ೋ>... -19 +ಂ,ಾ$ ಾwhೌe ಉಂYಾದ† ಂದ ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV
kಾ(zಗಳನುE ಸರಬOಾಜು Iಾಡಲು ಕ/ಾ ಟಕ ೈಮಗ2 ಅ4ವೃ67 +ಗಮ +ಯ8ತರವ Jೆ
)ಾಧ(#ಾ$ರುವR6ಲ. ಪ:ಸುLತ ಾwhೌe ಸXಲJೊಂXರುವRದ ಂದ ಸರಬOಾಜು Iಾಡಲು Tದ7 ದು†
kಾ(z ಗಳನುE ಸರಬOಾಜು IಾXದ ನಂತರ ಸದ ರವ Jೆ _‡ ಾವDಸಲು ತಮˆ ಎ^._.ಎಂ ಐಇT
QಾiೆಯMರುವ ಅನು,ಾನ ಾಗೂ %ೖಸೂರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾM ೆಯ 2020-21/ೇ )ಾMನ 15/ೇ
21

ಹಣ ಾಸು ಅನು,ಾನದX ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳ ಖ ೕ6Jೆ 8ೕಸM Tರುವ ರೂ. 134.99 ಲp ಅನು,ಾನವನುE
Iಾನ( ಾ! ಾ ಗಳ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ QಾiೆJೆ ಕೂಡ ೇ ವJಾ Zಸಲು ೋ ,ೆ.

kಾ(ಂw ೆಸರು - ೆWXಎ‰T, ಸರಸcDಪRರಂ ŠಾQೆ
Qಾiೆ ಸಂQೆ( - 50200027942477
ಐಎ‰ಎ^T ೋ... - HDFC0000065
ತಮˆ ನಂಬುJೆಯ
ಸ /-
fೕಜ/ಾ +,ೇ ಶಕರು.
ಾ ನಗOಾ4ವೃ67 PÉÆÃ±À
%ೖಸೂರು ೆ, %ೖಸೂರು."

The Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation was entrusted

with the job of such supply. This becomes the fulcrum of a

complaint by the petitioner to the ACB. The reason for the

complaint is that the same bag of the same quality was being sold

at ₹13/- per bag in the retail market. But, the same bag is sought

to be procured at ₹52/- per bag. It would be four times the value

that is sold in the retail market. According to the petitioner, the loss

caused to the exchequer of the State is ₹ 5,88,58,320/-. The

complaint reads as follows:

"Jೆ,

‹Mೕ^ ಅ!ೕpಕರು,
ಭ:sಾVGಾರ +ಗ:ಹ ದಳ,
%ೖಸೂರು ೆ,
22

%ೖಸೂರು.

Iಾನ(Oೇ,

>ಷಯ: ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV kಾ(z ಗಳ ಸರಬOಾಜು ಸಂಬಂಧ ನhೆ6ರುವ
ಅಕ:ಮದ ಕು ತು ತ+Qೆ ನhೆT, ಭ:sಾVGಾರ +ಗ:ಹ ಅ!+ಯಮ
1988ರ ಅXಯM (14-03-2016 ಾನೂ+ನ ಅನcಯದಂiೆ) {:8ನ‡
|ಕದ†%ಯನುE ,ಾಖMಸುವ ಬJೆ2.

ಉ ೇಖ: ಾ ನಗOಾ4ವೃ67 ೋಶ, ಾ! ಾ ಗಳ ಾUಾ ಲಯ, %ೖಸೂರು
ೆ, %ೖಸೂರು ಇವರ ಾUಾ ,ೇಶ ಸಂQೆ(. ಮು+T(4)
„ೆನ ೋ/%ೖ. ./ ಎ^._.ಎಂ/ಐ.ಇ.T./2020-21, 6/ಾಂಕ: 09-04-
2021.

***
%ೕಲKಂಡ >ಷಯ ೆK ಸಂಬಂ!Tದಂiೆ, %ೖಸೂರು ಾ #ಾ(9LಯMನ ನಗರ ಮತುL
Jಾ:Iಾಂತರ ಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳ ಮುQಾಂತರ ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳನುE ಖ ೕ6ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ
ಉ ೇಖದಂiೆ %ೖಸೂರು ಾ! ಾ ಗಳr ಾUಾ ,ೇಶ ೊರXTರುiಾLOೆ. ಸದ ಾUಾ ,ೇಶದM
ಕ/ಾ ಟಕ ೈಮಗ2 ಅ4ವೃ67 +ಗಮ +ಯ8ತ ಇವ ಂದ ಪ ಸರ )ೆEೕ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳನುE %ೖಸೂರು
ೆಯ #ಾ(9LJೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ನಗರ ಮತುL Jಾ:Iಾಂತರ ಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳ #ಾ(9LJೆ ಸರಬOಾಜು
Iಾಡುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ 4 ೆW >/ಾZD ಅXಯM ದರ ಪgVಗಳನುE ಪhೆ6ದು†, ಅದರಂiೆ 5 ೆ. . ಮತುL
10 ೆ. . )ಾIಾಥ( ದ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗBJೆ ರೂ. 52 ( .ಎ^.g. )ೇ ದಂiೆ) +ಗ!ಪXT ಒಟುV
14,71,458 ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳನುE ಖ ೕ6ಸಲು ಅನು|ೕದ/ೆ +ೕXರುiಾLOೆ. ಇದರ ಒಟುV Iೌಲ( ರೂ.
7,65,15,816/- (ಏಳr ೋg ಆರವiೆ•ದು ಲpದ ಹ6/ೈದು )ಾ>ರದ ಎಂಟುನೂರು ಹ6/ಾರು). ಸದ
ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳ >ತರqೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ %ೖಸೂರು ಮ ಾನಗರ ಾM ೆ ಮತುL ಾ ಪಂGಾಯH #ಾ(9LJೆ
)ೇ ರುವ ಎ ಾ Jಾ:ಮ ಪಂGಾZDಗಳ ಾಗೂ ಪRರಸ ೆಗಳ )ಾIಾನ( ಸ ೆಯM UಾವR,ೇ >ಧ#ಾದ
ಅನು|ೕದ/ೆಯನುE ಪhೆ6ರುವR6ಲ. ನಗರ ಮತುL Jಾ:Iಾಂತರ ಸ*Bೕಯ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗಳr ಸcಯಂ
ಪ ಪ•ಣ ಸಂ)ೆ*ಗ'ಾ$ದು†, ಅವRಗಳMನ ಜನಪ:D+!ಗಳ ಅ! ಾರವನುE |ಟಕುJೊBT, ಹಣವನುE
ದುರುಪfೕಗJೊBT ೊಳrCವ ಉ,ೆ†ೕಶ6ಂದ ಈ ೕD ಾUಾ ,ೇಶ +ೕXರುವRದು %ೕ ೊEೕಟ ೆK
ಕಂಡುಬರುತL,ೆ. ಮುಂದುವOೆದು ಸದ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳ ದರ ೆK ಸಂಬಂ!Tದಂiೆ ೇಳrವR,ಾದOೆ
ಕ/ಾ ಟಕ ೈಮಗ2 ಅ4ವೃ67 +ಗಮದವರು ಸರಬOಾಜು IಾXರುವ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗಳsೆV ಗುಣಮಟV ಮತುL
Jಾತ: ೊಂ6ರುವ kಾ(zಗಳr ಮುಕL IಾರುಕYೆVಯM .ಎ^.g. )ೇ ದಂiೆ 13 ರೂ ಗಳM
IಾOಾಟ#ಾಗುDLರುತL#ೆ. ಮುಕL IಾರುಕYೆVಯ xಲOೆ(Retail) IಾOಾಟದM 13 ರೂ ಾZಗBJೆ
IಾOಾಟ#ಾಗುವ ಬYೆV kಾ(zಗBJೆ ಸಗಟು (Wholesale) ದರದM ರೂ. 52 ಗಳನುE +ಗ!ಪXT,
23

ಅನು ೕದ ೆ ೕ ರುವ ದು ಾವ ಜ ಕ ಹಣದ ಅಪವ ಯವಲ ೆ ಮ ೇನು ಆಗ ಾರದು. ಅಲ ೆ 5 !ೆ.".
ಮತು 10 !ೆ.". ಾ$ಾಥ ದ ಎರಡೂ ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗ.ಗೂ 'ರೂ. 52/- ".ಎ/.0. / ೇ1ದಂ ೆ
ಗ3ಪ 4ರುವ ದು ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ!ೆ9 ಾ:;ಾ< ೆ. ಮುಕ $ಾರುಕ*ೆ+ಯ= ಸಗಟು (Wholesale)
ದರದ= 5!ೆ.".ಯ 7,35,729 ,ಾ -ಗ.@ೆ ರೂ. 10/- ರಂ ೆ ರೂ. 73,57,290/-(ಎಪAತೂರು ಲBದ
ಐವ ೇಳE ಾFರದ ಇನೂHರ ೊಂಬತು ) ಆಗುತ ೆ. 10 !ೆ.". 7,35,729 ,ಾ -ಗ.@ೆ ರೂ. 14/-
ರಂ ೆ ರೂ. 1,03,00,206/- (ಒಂದು !ೋ0 ಮೂರು ಲBದ ಇನೂHರ ಆರು) ಅಂದJೆ ರೂ. 14,71,458
ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗಳನುH ಖ1ೕLಸಲು ಒಟು+ $ೌಲ ರೂ. 1,76,57,496/-(ಒಂದು !ೋ0 ಎಪA ಾರು ಲBದ
ಐವ ೇಳE ಾFರದ ಾನೂರ ೊಂಬ ಾರು) ಗಳE ಾ!ಾಗುತ ೆ. ಇವರು ಕ ಷ+ 5 !ೆ.". ಾ$ಾಥ ದ
ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗ.@ೆ ಕ O ದರವನುH ನಮೂL4ದPJೆ ಸQಲA ಮ0+@ಾದರೂ ಅನು$ಾನ ಕ O ಆಗುRತು.
ಆದJೆ ಎರಡೂ ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗ.ಗೂ ರೂ.52/- ರಂ ೆ ಒಂ ೇ ,ೆ ೆಯನುH ನಮೂLಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ
ಸು$ಾರು ರೂ. 5,88,58,320/- (ಐದು !ೋ0 ಎಂಬ ೆಂಟು ಲBದ ಐವ ೆಂಟು ಾFರದ ಮುನೂHರ
ಇಪAತು ) !ೋ0 ಗ.ಗೂ S< ಾ< ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರವನುH ಎಸ< ಾPJೆ Tಾಗೂ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY
ಗಮದ ವ ವ ಾZಪಕ ೇ ಶಕರು ಒಂದು ,ಾ -@ೆ ರೂ. 52 ದರವನುH ೆ@ೆದು!ೊಂ ರುವ ದ!ೆ9
ಪ\Jಾ]ೆಯಂ ೆ !ೆ.ಆ^.ನಗರದ ಪ ರಸ_ೆ@ೆ ಸರಬJಾಜು $ಾ ರುವ ಒಟು+ ,ಾ - ಸಂ`ೆ . 19230.
ಇದರ ಒಟು+ $ೌಲ ರೂ. 9,99,991/-(ಒಂಬತು ಲBದ ೊಂಬ ೊಂಬತು ಾFರದ ಒಂ,ೈನೂರ
ೊಂಬ ೊಂದು) !ೆ9 L ಾಂಕ. 09-08-2021 ರಂದು *ಾ ab ಇ ಾQcb (GST Bill) ನಂ. 196 ರನುH
ೕ ರು ಾJೆ. *ಾ ab ಇ ಾQcb ಪ Jಾ]ೆಯನುH ಈ ದೂ1ನ eೊ ೆ ಲಗRಸ ಾ< ೆ ಮತು ಮುಕ
$ಾರುಕ*ೆ+ಯ fಲJೆ (Retail) $ಾJಾಟದ= 5 !ೆ.". ಾ$ಾಥ ದ ಒಂದು ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ನುH ರೂ. 13
ಗ.@ೆ ಾನು GREENTARA EARTHSAFE COTTON BAGS ಂದ ಖ1ೕL4ರುವ *ಾ ab
ಇ ಾQcb (GST Bill) ನಂ.51 ಅನುH ಈ ದೂ1ನ eೊ ೆ ಲಗRಸ ಾ< ೆ.

Tಾಗೂ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY ಗಮ ಸದ1 ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗಳನುH ಗಮದ
ವRgಂದ ೇ !ೈgಂದ (Hand Made) ತ;ಾ14 ಸರಬJಾಜು $ಾಡುವ ಬದಲು ತಮh ಸಂ ೆZಯ=
!ೆಲಸ $ಾಡುRರುವ ಮijಾ ಉ ೊ ೕ<ಯ ಪRಯ ಕlೆgಂದ ಯಂತ6ದ ಮೂಲಕ ತ;ಾ14ದ ,ಾ -
ಗಳನುH ಖ1ೕL4 ಸರಬJಾಜು $ಾ ರು ಾJೆ. ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY ಗಮದ
ಾZಪ ೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಉ ೆPೕಶವನುH ಮJೆತ ವ ವ ಾZಪಕ ೇ ಶಕರು ಮijಾ ಉ ೊ ೕ< Tಾಗೂ
" ಾ3!ಾ1ಗಳE, ಸQಜನ ಪBmಾತ ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ನlೆ4ರುವ ದು ಸAಷ+]ಾ< @ೋಚ1ಸುತ ೆ.

Tಾ@ಾ< ಸದ1 ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗಳ ಸರಬJಾ"@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ34ದಂ ೆ ನlೆLರುವ ಸಂಪ\ಣ
ಪ6o6pಯನುH ಕು1ತು ತ `ೆ ನlೆ4, ಸದ1 ಅವ3ಯ= !ಾ;ಾ ೇಶ ೕ ರುವ " ಾ3!ಾ1ಗಳ
Tಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ+ವರ FರುದY ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ಗ6ಹ ಅ3 ಯಮ 1988ರ ಅ ಯ= (14-03-2016
!ಾನೂ ನ ಅನQಯದಂ ೆ) o6Sನs ಕದPOಯನುH ಾಖ=ಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಕ' !ಾನೂನು ಕ6ಮ
!ೈ@ೊಳt,ೇ!ೆಂದು !ೋ1 ೆ.
24

ಇವರ FರುದY ಇ=ಯವJೆ@ೆ $ಾ ರುವ mಾರಂಪ1ಕ ಕಟ+ಡದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪuೕಗ, !ೋFv
ಬ@ೆV ಸುಳEt $ಾiR, ಅ3!ಾರ ಯಮ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ ಮತು ಈ ಬ@ೆV 2 ,ಾ1 ತಮ@ೆ ದೂರನುH ೕ ದPರೂ
ಸಹ ಸದ1ಯವರ Oೕ ೆ ;ಾವ ೇ ಕ6ಮವನುH !ೈ@ೊಂ ರುವ Lಲ.

Jಾಷyತ ಮTಾ ಾh @ಾಂ3ೕ"ಯವರು @ಾ6ಮ ಸQJಾdåದ ಬು ಾLಯ Oೕ ೆ Jಾzyೕಯ
ಸ!ಾ ರ ಾZ{ಸುವ ಆಶಯವನುH ಕಂ ದPರು. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಸಂF|ಾನದ 73 ಮತು 74 ೇ RದುPಪ ಯ
ಮೂಲಕ ಾZ{ಸಲAಟ+ ಸZ.ೕ;ಾಡ.ತ ವ ವ ೆZ ಕ6S4ದ Tೆeೆ} ಗುರುತುಗಳE ಇRTಾಸದ ಾಖ ೆಗjಾ<
ಉ.L ೆ. @ಾಂLೕ"ಯವರ 1948ರ ಜನವ1 uೕಜ ೆ ಅವರ ಆಶಯವನುH ಪ6RmಾLಸುತ ೆ.
_ಾರತದ= ಾವ @ಾಂ3ೕ ಪ6~ತ iಂ• ಸQJಾ€ ಆಡ.ತವನುH ಾZ{ಸುವ ಾ1gಂದ
FಮುಖJಾ< ೆPೕ]ೆ. ಆದJೆ ಪಂ8ಾಯ• Jಾ€ ಸಂ ೆZಗಳ ಸಬ=ೕಕರಣದ ಮೂಲಕ @ಾ6ಮ ಸQJಾ€
ಆಶಯಗಳನುH ಸAಲA ಮ0+@ೆ "ೕವಂತ]ಾ< ಇಡುವ ಪ6ಯತHಗಳE ಮುಂದುವJೆL ೆ. ಇದರ _ಾಗ]ಾ<
ಕ ಾ ಟಕದ= ಕ ಾ ಟಕ 1[@ಾ6ಮ ಸQJಾ€ ಮತು ಪಂ8ಾಯ• Jಾ€] 1 ಅ3 ಯಮ, 1993 eಾ1@ೆ
ಬಂL ೆ.

ಇದರ ಉ ೆPೕಶಗಳE ಮತು !ಾರಣಗಳ Tೇ.!ೆ

1993ರ ಅ3 ಯಮ 14 - 1991 ರ ಎಪA ೇರಡ ೇ ಸಂF|ಾನದ RದುPಪ F|ೇಯಕದ=
ಪ6 ಾF4ರುವ ಬದ ಾವ‚ೆಗಳ ಪ1‚ಾಮ]ಾ< 1983ರ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ " ಾ ಪ1ಷತುಗಳ, ಾಲೂಕು
ಪಂ8ಾgRಗಳ, ಮಂಡಲ ಪಂ8ಾgತಗಳ ಮತು ಾ ಯ ಪಂ8ಾgRಗಳ ಅ3 ಯಮದ ಬದ ಾ<
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಪಂ8ಾಯ• Jಾ€ F|ೇಯಕ 1993 ನುH ಮಂ ಸ ಾ< ೆ. Jಾಜ ದ=ನ @ಾ6Sೕಣ ಅWವೃLY
!ಾಯ ಕ6ಮಗಳ= ಜನರು Tೆ8ಾƒ< mಾ ೊVಳEtವಂ ೆ $ಾಡುವ ಮತು ಆ !ಾಯ ಕ6ಮಗಳನುH ಇನHಷು+
ಪ1‚ಾಮ!ಾ1;ಾ< ಅನು7ಾ„ನ!ೆ9 ತರುವ ಸಲು]ಾ< @ಾ6ಮ, ಾಲೂಕು ಮತು " ಾ ಮಟ+ಗಳ=
ಚು ಾgತ ಸಂ ೆZಗಳE ಇರುವ ಮೂರು ಹಂತದ ಪಂ8ಾಯ•Jಾ€ ವ ವ ೆZಯನುH ಾZ{ಸಲು ಈ
F|ೇಯಕ.

ಆದJೆ ಗ Sತ Oೖಸೂರು " ಾ3!ಾ1 Jೋi~ 4ಂಧೂ1 @ಾ6ಮ ಸQJಾಜ ದ ಎ ಾ
ಕನಸುಗಳನುH @ಾ.@ೆ ತೂ1 ಭ6ಷ+8ಾರ ಎಸ<ರುವ ದು ದುರದೃಷ+ಕರ. ಆದP1ಂದ ಇವರ Oೕ ೆ o6Sನs
ಕದPOಯನುH ಾಖ=4 !ಾನೂನು ಕ6ಮವನುH ೆ@ೆದು!ೊಳt,ೇ!ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ !ೋರು ೇ ೆ.

ವಂದ ೆಗjೆ... ಂL@ೆ,
ಸi/-
(J£ï.Dgï.gÀ«ZÀAzÉæÃUËqÀ)
ವoೕಲರು"
25

The then ACB, based upon the said complaint, communicates to the

Government seeking approval under Section 17A of the Act to

out. For a long time no order is passed. Finally, on 17-02-2022 the

following order is passed directing the complaint to be treated as

per the Standard Operating Procedure. The order reads as follows:

"ಸಂ`ೆ : 4ಆಸುಇ 51 ಎ/ಎಎ/ 2022 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ!ಾ ರದ ಸf]ಾಲಯ
ಆಡಕ 08 ಪ ಟಗಳE F|ಾನ ೌಧ
,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು, L ಾಂಕ: 17/02/2022.

ಇವ1ಂದ:-

ಸ!ಾ ರದ !ಾಯ ದŠ
4ಬ‹ಂL ಮತು ಆಡ.ತ ಸು|ಾರ‚ೆ ಇ ಾ`ೆ
F|ಾನ ೌಧ, ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು - 560 001.

ಇವ1@ೆ:

ಅಪರ Œ=ೕ/ ಮTಾ ೇ ಶಕರು.

ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ಗ6ಹ ದಳ, ನಂ.49, ಖ ಜ ಭವನ,
Jೇ/!ೋ/ ರ ೆ, ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು-560 001.

$ಾನ Jೇ.

Fಷಯ : Oೖಸೂರು " ಾ ]ಾ {ಯ=ನ ನಗರ, @ಾ6$ಾಂತರ ಸZ.ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆZಗಳ
ಮು`ಾಂತರ ಪ1ಸರ ೆHೕi ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗಳನುH ಖ1ೕLಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ
ಅಕ6ಮ ನlೆL ೆ ಎಂದು $ಾ ರುವ ಆJೋಪಗಳ ಕು1ತು 1)
" ಾ3!ಾ1ಗಳE, Oೖಸೂರು " ೆ Oೖಸೂರು, 2)ವ ವ ಾZಪಕ
ೇ ಶಕರು, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Jಾಜ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು
26

ರವರುಗಳ FರುದYದ F8ಾರ‚ೆ/ತ `ೆ !ೈ@ೊಳtಲು ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ)
ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ತಡ !ಾpP-1988 ರಂ ೆ ಪ\]ಾ ನುಮRಯನುH ೕಡುವ

ಉ ೇಖ:1)ತಮh ಪತ6 ಸಂ`ೆ : ಎ4• / !ೇಂ.ಕ / ಪ\.Žಾ / Oೖ / ಎ/.{.ಅ" /
70 / 2021, L ಾಂಕ: 17/12/2021

2) _ಾರತ ಸ!ಾ ರದ 4ಬ‹ಂL ಮತು ತರ,ೇR ಮಂ ಾ6ಲಯದ ಪತ6
L ಾಂಕ:03/09/2021

*****
Oೕಲ9ಂಡ Fಷಯ!ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂ4ದ ²æÃ gÀ«ZÀAzÉæÃUËqÀ ಅqÉÆéÃ!ೇ• & D ಟ^, Oೖಸೂರು
ಇವರು L ಾಂಕ: 13/10/2021ರಂದು ಸ=4ರುವ ಅ" ಯ ಅನQಯ Oೖಸೂರು " ಾ ]ಾ {ಯ
]ಾ {ಯ=ನಗರ @ಾ6$ಾಂತರ ಸZ.ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆZಗಳ ಮು`ಾಂತರ ಪ1ಸರ ೆHೕi ಬ*ೆ+ ,ಾ -ಗಳನುH
ಖ1ೕLಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಅಕ6ಮ ನlೆL ೆ ಎನH ಾದ ಆJೋಪಗಳ ಕು1ತು " ಾ3!ಾ1ಗಳE, Oೖಸೂರು
" ೆ Oೖಸೂರು. 2)ವ ವ ಾZಪಕ ೇ ಶಕರು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Jಾಜ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು
ರವರುಗಳ FರುದYದ F8ಾರ‚ೆ/ತ `ೆ !ೈ@ೊಳtಲು ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ) ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ತlೆ !ಾpP-1988 ರಂ ೆ
ಪ\]ಾ ನುಮRಯನುH ೕಡುವಂ ೆ ಉ ೇ•ತ(1)ರ ಪತ6ದ= !ೋರ ಾ<ರುತ ೆ.

ಆದJೆ, ಉ ೇ•ತ(2)ರ ಪತ6ದ= _ಾರತ ಸ!ಾ ರದ 4ಬ‹ಂL ಮತು ತರ,ೇR
ಮಂ ಾ6ಲಯವ Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988ರ ಕಲಂ 17 A ರ ಯ=ನ ಪ6ಕರಣಗಳನುH
ವ iಸುವ ಕು1ತು ತ `ಾ ದಳ Tಾಗೂ ಸPÀëಮ mಾ63!ಾರಗಳE !ೈ@ೊಳt,ೇ!ಾದ ಕ6ಮಗಳ ಕು1ತು
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) $ಾಗ ಸೂfಗಳನುH Tೊರ 4ದುP( ಪ6R
ಲಗRಸ ಾ< ೆ) ಸದ1 $ಾಗ ಸೂfಯನQಯ ಉ ೇ•ತ(1)ರ ಪ6 ಾವ ೆಯನುH ಸ=ಸುವಂ ೆ !ೋರಲು
ೇ ŠಸಲA0+ ೆPೕ ೆ.

ತಮh ನಂಬು@ೆಯ
ಸi/-
(ಸಂಜc •.ಎ/)
ಸ!ಾ ರದ ಅ3ೕನ !ಾಯ ದŠ ,
4ಬ‹ಂL ಮತು ಆಡ.ತ ಸು|ಾರ‚ೆ ಇ ಾ`ೆ
( ೇ]ೆಗಳE-1)"
27

But, this was not communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the

Government by its order dated 19-09-2022 declines to grant the

approval under Section 17A of the Act. The order reads as follows:

"ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ!ಾ ರ

ಸಂ`ೆ :4ಆಸುಇ 51 ಎ/ಎ/ಎ/ 2022 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ!ಾ ರ ಸf]ಾಲಯ
!ೊಠ ಸಂ`ೆ .15 '•' F|ಾನ ೌಧ
,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು, L ಾಂಕ:19.09.2022

ಇಂದ:

ಸ!ಾ ರದ !ಾಯ ದŠ
4ಬ‹ಂL ಮತು ಆಡ.ತ ಸು|ಾರ‚ೆ ಇ ಾ`ೆ
F|ಾನ ೌಧ, ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು.

ಇವ1@ೆ:

$ಾನ ೋ!ಾಯುಕರು
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೋ!ಾಯುಕ
ಅಂ,ೇಡ9^ Fೕ3
ಬಹುಮಹ ಗಳ ಕಟ+ಡ
,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು..

$ಾನ Jೆ.

Fಷಯ: Š6ೕ ರFಚಂ ೆ6ೕ@ೌಡ, ಅqÉÆéÃ!ೇ• & D ಟ^, 8ಾಮJಾಜಪ ರಂ,
Oೖಸೂರು ಇವರು ಅಂLನ Oೖಸೂರು " ಾ3!ಾ1 Tಾಗೂ ಅಂLನ
ವ ವ ಾZಪಕ ೇ ಶಕರು. ಕ ಾ ಟಕ !ೈಮಗV ಅWವೃLY ಗಮ
ಯSತ, ,ೆಂಗಳ...ರು ರವರ FರುದY ಭ67ಾ+8ಾರ ಗ6ಹದಳ,
Oೖಸೂರು ಇ= ಸ=4ರುವ ದೂ1ನ ಕು1ತು.
28

ಉ ೇಖ: ಭ ಾ ಾರ ಗ ಹದಳ ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂ ೆ :
ಎ / ೇಂಕ/ಪ .!ಾ/"ೖ/ಎ$.%. ಅ'(/70/2021, )*ಾಂಕ:
ಭ ಾ ಾರ 17.12.2021.

*****

"ೕ+ನ -ಷಯ ೆ0 ಸಂಬಂ2 ದಂ3ೆ, ಉ ೇ4ತ (1)ರ ಪತ ದ+ 5ಂ)ನ "ೖಸೂರು
' ಾ2 ಾ8 9ಾಗೂ 5ಂ)ನ ವ ವ:ಾ;ಪಕ <ೇ(ಶಕರು, ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ೈಮಗ@ ಅAವೃ)C ಗಮ ಯDತ,
EೆಂಗಳFರು ರವರ -ರುದC Gಾಡ ಾದ ಆJೋಪಗಳ ಕು8ತು ಭ ಾ ಾರ ಪ Kಬಂಧಕ ಾMN, 1988ರ
ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ)ರP ತ ೆ ೈQೊಳRಲು ಪ Sಾ(ನುಮKಯನುT ೋ8ರುವ ಪ :ಾUವ*ೆಯನುT Jಾಕ8 <ೆ
ಎಂದು ತಮQೆ KVಸಲು <ೇ(WಸಲXY <ೆNೕ*ೆ.

ತಮZ ನಂಬುQೆಯ
ಸ5/-
(]ೇ^_ ತರಕ`)
ಸ ಾ(ರದ ಅ2ೕನ ಾಯ(ದW(
ಬaಂ) ಮತುU ಆಡVತ ಸುbಾರcೆ
ಇ ಾ ೆ (:ೇSೆಗಳd-1)"

The petitioner then seeks the status of the complaint lodged by him

before the Lokayukta. The communication of the petitioner reads as

follows:

"To, Date: 13-02-2023

The Superintendent of police
Lokayukta
Mysore.

Subject: Request for the Stauts of the complaint
lodged by me against Rohini sindhuri IAS
& Managing Director of Karnatataka
Handloom Corporation with Certified copy
29

Ref: ACB/CO/PS/MYS/SP/APP Number 70/2021,

With reference to the above I, wish to submit that I, have
Filed the complaint with you about the corruption in the
purchase of eco-friendly clothes from Karnataka handlooms
development corporation limited Bangalore against Rohini
sindhuri when she was a Deputy Commissioner of MYSORE
district for the period of Year 2021, & the Managing Director of
Karnatataka Handloom Corporation Bangalore, Dated on
13/10/2021 to take action against them according to Anti
coruption Act 1988 Sub Section 17 (A) & Karnataka Lokayukta
Amended Act 2013 (NO.1 of 2014) and (Original Act 1984) So,
3 months back file transferred to your office from ACB according
to the High court Order, but Still now I,Could not get any
updates from your Department, so now Kidnly update the status
of the Complaint from your office till the Chief Secretary
Chamber & also issue the certified copy of the complaint status.

Advocate.

Sd/-
Ravichandregowda.N.R."

It is then on 27-02-2023 information is rendered to the petitioner

by the following communication:

"ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮQೆ Gಾ5K ೕಡುವh<ೇ*ೆಂದJೆ, 3ಾವh ' ಾ2 ಾ8 Jೋ5i ಂದೂ8
ಮತುU ವ ವ:ಾ;ಪಕ <ೇ(ಶಕರು, ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ Jಾಜ ೈಮಗ@ ಗಮ ರವರ -ರುದC ೕPರುವ ದೂರು
ಅ'(ಯ ಪ ಸುUತ ಹಂತದ ಬQೆ@ Gಾ5K ೕಡಲು ೋ8 )*ಾಂಕ:24.02.2023 ರಂದು ನಮZ ಕkೇ8Qೆ
ಪತ ವ ವ9ಾರ GಾPರುKUೕ8.

3ಾವh ೕPರುವ ದೂ8Qೆ ಸಂಬಂ2 ದಂ3ೆ - ಾರcೆ/ತ ೆ ೈQೊಳRಲು ಅನುಮK ೋ8
ಸlಮ mಾ 2 ಾರ ೆ0 ಅನುಮK ೕಡಲು ೋ8 ಪತ ವ ವ9ಾರ Gಾಡ ಾnದುN, ಸlಮ mಾ 2 ಾರವh
ಸದ8 ದೂರು ಅ'(ಯನುT - ಾರcೆ/ತ ೆ ೈQೊಳRಲು ಅನುಮKಯನುT Jಾಕ8 ಆ<ೇಶ
GಾPರುತU<ೆ.
30

ಸದ8 Gಾ5KQೆ ಸಂಬಂ2 ದ ದೃoೕಕೃತ ಪ KಯನುT ಸlಮ mಾ 2 ಾರ)ಂದ
ಪpೆಯಬಹು<ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮQೆ KVಸ ಾn<ೆ."

The order dated 19-09-2022 declining to grant approval as

obtaining under Section 17A of the Act is called in question by the

petitioner in Writ Petition No.2805 of 2025. A coordinate Bench of

this Court allows the petition by the following order dated 20-02-

2025:

".... .... ....

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,
learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the
impugned order dated 19.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2
under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in
order to point out that the said order passed by respondent No.2
refusing to grant approval for conduct of enquiry/investigation
for the offences alleged by the petitioner by passing impugned
non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order without
application of mind, which is contrary to the following judgment
of the Apex Court and this Court .

Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of
Investigation - (2020) 2 SCC 338.
Shreeroopa v. State of Karnataka - (2022)
SCC OnLine Kar 1714.
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab-
(2007) 1 SCC 1.
Inspector of Police v. Battenapatia Venkata
Ratnam - (2015) 13 SCC 87.
Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan - (2021) 8
SCC 768.
Shankara Bhat v State of Kerala and Ors -
(2021) SCC OnLine Ker 16357.
31

4. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to
respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with
law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3
and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 and 2, submit that there is no merit in the petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would
be necessary to extract the impugned order/communication
which reads as under:
ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ಸ ಾ(ರ
¸ÀASÉå:¹.C¸ÀÄ.E51J¸ïJJ¸ï2022 ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ಸ ಾ(ರ ಸqSಾಲಯ
ೊಠP ಸಂ ೆ .15 ' ' -bಾನ :ೌಧ
¨ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.09.2022.
ಇಂದ:
ಸ ಾ(ರದ ಾಯ(ದW(
ಬaಂ) ಮತುU ಆಡVತ ಸುbಾರcೆ ಇ ಾ ೆ
-bಾನ :ೌಧ, EೆಂಗಳFರು.

ಇವ8Qೆ:
Gಾನ ೋ ಾಯುಕUರು
ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕU
ಅಂEೇಡ0u -ೕ2
ಬಹುಮಹPಗಳ ಕಟ ಡ
EೆಂಗಳFರು.

Gಾನ Jೆ,
-ಷಯ: Wೕ ರ-ಚಂ<ೆ ೕQೌಡ, ಅಡw ೇx & Drlgï,
ಾಮJಾಜಪhರಂ, "ೖಸೂರು ಇವರು ಅಂ)ನ "ೖಸೂರು
' ಾ2 ಾ8 9ಾಗೂ ಅಂ)ನ ವ ವ:ಾ;ಪಕ <ೇ(ಶಕರು,
ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ೈಮಗ@ ಅAವೃ)C ಗಮ ಯDತ, EೆಂಗಳFರು
ರವರ -ರುದC ಭ ಾ ಾರ ಗ ಹದಳ, "ೖಸೂರು ಇ+
ಸ+ ರುವ ದೂ8ನ ಕು8ತು.
32

ಉ ೇಖ: ಭ ಾ ಾರ ಗ ಹದಳ ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂ ೆ :
ಎ / ೇಂಕ/y.!ಾ/"ೖ/ಎ$.%. ಅ'(/70/2021, )*ಾಂಕ.
17.12.2021.

"ೕ+ನ -ಷಯ ೆ0 ಸಂಬಂ2 ದಂ3ೆ, ಉ ೇ4ತ (1)ರ ವತ ದ+ 5ಂ)ನ "ೖಸೂರು
' ಾ2 ಾ8 9ಾಗೂ 5ಂ)ನ ವ ವ:ಾ;ಪಕ <ೇ(ಶಕರು, ಕ*ಾ(ಟಕ ೈಮಗ@ ಅAವೃ)C ಗಮ
ಯDತ, EೆಂಗಳFರು ರವರ -ರುದC Gಾಡ ಾದ ಆJೋಪಗಳ ಕು8ತು ಭ ಾ ಾರ ಪ Kಬಂಧಕ
ಾMN, 1988ರ ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ)ರP ತ ೆ ೈQೊಳRಲು ಪ Sಾ(ನುಮKಯನುT ೋ8ರುವ
ಪ :ಾUವ*ೆಯನುT Jಾಕ8 <ೆ ಎಂದು ತಮQೆ KVಸಲು <ೇ(WಸಲXY <ೆNೕ*ೆ.

ತಮZ ನಂಬುQೆಯ
sd/-
(]ೇ^_ ತರಕ`)
ಸ ಾ(ರದ ಅ2ೕನ ಾಯ(ದW(,
¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ
E¯ÁSÉ ¸ÉÃªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ -1

7. As is clear from the impugned
communication/order that the same is an absolutely cryptic,
laconic, unreasoned and non-speaking order/communication
without any application of mind whatsoever, as to why approval
for the conduct of inquiry/enquiry/investigation was being
declined/refused by respondent No.2. In other words, the
impugned order being passed without assigning any reasons as
to why the request of the petitioner to conduct
inquiry/enquiry/investigation was declined and without referring
to the contentions of the petitioner or material on record, I am
of the considered opinion that the impugned non-speaking order
passed without application of mind runs contrary to the
principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the
aforesaid judgments warranting interference by this Court in the
present petition.

8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned Communication/order dated 19.09.2022 bearing No.CSUI 51 SAS 2022 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside.

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The coordinate bench, having examined the matter in its

entirety, deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to

the hands of the Government with a clear mandate to

reconsider the question and pass orders in accordance with

law. It is this direction, that forms the very fulcrum upon

which the present lis now rests. Pursuant to such remand, the

Government has passed the impugned order, the substance of

which reveals that upon consideration of the proposal, the

Government has chosen, to once again decline the grant of

approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The reasoning, though expanded in form, remains

fundamentally anchored on the earlier stance, now

supplemented by reference to a departmental enquiry, that

culminated in the exoneration of the concerned. The order

impugned reads as follows:

"ಪ ಪ ಾವ ೆ

ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (1)ರ ಪತ ದ ೕ ರ ಚಂ ೆ ೕ ೌಡ, ಅqÉÆéÃ ೇ ಮತು ಆ"ಟ$, ೖಸೂರು ರವರು ೖಸೂರು ( ಾ )ಾ*+ಯ ನ ನಗರ, ಾ /ಾಂತರ ಸ01ೕಯ ಸಂ ೆ0ಗಳ ಮು3ಾಂತರ ಪ4ಸರ ೆ5ೕ6 ಬ8ೆ9 :ಾ*;ಗಳನು5 ಖ4ೕ=ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಅಕ ಮ ನ@ೆ= ೆ ಎಂದು ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ Eಗ ಹ ದಳ ೆG Eೕ"ರುವ ದೂ4ನ 6 ೆ5 ೆಯ ಅಂ=ನ ( ಾH ಾ4ಗಳI, ೖಸೂರು ( ೆ ಮತು ಅಂ=ನ ವ*ವ ಾ0ಪಕ E ೇJಶಕರು, ಕ ಾJಟಕ ೈಮಗL ಅMವೃ=O Eಗಮ, :ೆಂಗಳPರು ರವರುಗಳ ರುದO ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ ತ@ೆ ಾQR-1988 ಕಲಂ 17(A) ರಂTೆ DಾರUೆ/ತE3ೆ ೈ ೊಳVಲು ಪW)ಾJನುಮXಯನು5 EೕಡುವಂTೆ ಅಪರ Y ೕZ ಮ[ಾE ೇJಶಕರು, ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ Eಗ ಹದಳ ಇವರು ೋ4ರುTಾ]ೆ.

ೕಲGಂಡ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯನು5 ಪ4 ೕ ^, ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (2)ರ ಸ ಾJರದ ಪತ ದ ಅಂ=ನ ( ಾH ಾ4ಗಳI, ೖಸೂರು ( ೆ ಮತು ಅಂ=ನ ವ*ವ ಾ0ಪಕ E ೇJಶಕರು, ಕ ಾJಟಕ ೈಮಗL ಅMವೃ=O Eಗಮ, :ೆಂಗಳPರು ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದO /ಾಡ ಾದ ಆ]ೋಪಗಳ ಕು4ತು ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ ತ@ೆ ಾQR-1988 ಕಲಂ 17(A) ರ" ತE3ೆ ೈ ೊಳVಲು ಪW)ಾJನುಮXಯನು5 ೋ4ರುವ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯನು5 E]ಾಕ4ಸ ಾ_ರುತ ೆ.

ಸದ4 ಸ ಾJರದ ಪತ ಸಂ3ೆ*: ^ಆಸುಇ 51 ೆಅ ೆ 2022, = ಾಂಕ: 19.09.2022ನು5 ರದುRಪ"ಸುವಂTೆ ೕ ಎ`. ಆ$ ರ ಚಂ ೆ ೌಡ ರವರು /ಾನ* ಉಚb ಾ*cಾಲಯದ 4 ಅ(J ಸಂ3ೆ*: 2805/2025 ರನdಯ ಪ ಕರಣವನು5 ಾಖ ^ರುTಾ]ೆ. ಸದ4 ಪ ಕರಣ ೆG ಸಂಬಂH^ದಂTೆ /ಾನ* ಉಚb ಾ*cಾಲಯವf ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (3)ರ = ಾಂಕ: 20.02.2025 ರ ಆ ೇಶದ 4 ಅ(Jಯನು5 ಪfರಸG4^ರುತ ೆ [ಾಗೂ ಸ ಾJರದ ಪತ ಸಂ3ೆ*: ^ಆಸುಇ 51 ೆಅ ೆ 2022, = ಾಂಕ:

19.09.2022ನು5 ತ1V[ಾgರುತ ೆ ಮತು ಾನೂEನ ಪ ಾರ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯನು5 ಮರುಪ4ಗhಸುವಂTೆ ಮತು ಸೂಕ ಆ ೇಶವನು5 [ೊರ"ಸುವಂTೆ ಆ ೇ ^ರುತ ೆ.

ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (4)ರ ೕ ರ ಚಂ ೆ ೕ ೌಡ, ಅqÉÆéÃ ೇ ಮತು ಆ"ಟ$, ೖಸೂರು ಇವರು /ಾನ* ಉಚb ಾ*cಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶ = ಾಂಕ: 20.02.2025 ರಂTೆ ಕ ಮ ವ6ಸುವಂTೆ ೋ4 ಸ ಾJರ ೆG ಮನ ಸ ^ರುTಾ]ೆ.

ಅದರಂTೆ, 4 ಅ(J ಸಂ3ೆ*: 2805/2025ರ ಪ ಕರಣದ /ಾನ* ಉಚb ಾ*cಾಲಯವf Eೕ"ರುವ ಆ ೇಶದ 6 ೆ5 ೆಯ ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (1) ರ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯನು5 ಮTೊ i ಪ4 ೕ ಸ ಾ_,

ಸದ4 ಪ ಾವ ೆಯ ದೂರು ಾರರು /ಾ"ರುವ ಆ]ೋಪಗಳ ಕು4ತು ಈ ಾಗ ೇ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ9 ಅH ಾ4ಯವರ ರುkಧ ಇ ಾ3ಾ DಾರUೆಯನು5 ೈ ೊಂಡು, ೕ ೆ ಓದ ಾದ (5)ರ ಸ ಾJರದ ಆ ೇಶದ ಅH ಾ4ಯವರನು5 ೋಷಮುಕ ೊ1^, ಇ ಾ3ಾ DಾರUೆmಂದ ೈnಡ ಾ_ರುತ ೆ.

ಈ 6 ೆ5 ೆಯ ೕ ರ ಚಂ ೆ ೕ ೌಡ ರವರು 4 ಅ(J ಸಂ3ೆ* : 2805/2025 ರ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಪ 5^ರುವ ಅಂಶ [ಾಗೂ ಇ ಾ3ಾ DಾರUೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳI ಒಂ ೆ ಆ_ರುವfದ4ಂದ ಮTೊ i ಇ ೇ ಷಯ ೆG ಸಂಬಂH^ದಂTೆ ಕ ಾJಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕರವ4 ೆ ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ ತ@ೆ ಾQR- 1988, ಕಲಂ 17(A) ರ" ತE3ೆ / DಾರUೆ ೈ ೊಳVಲು ಸ ಾJರದ ಪW)ಾJನುಮXಯನು5 Eೕಡುವfದು ಸ/ಾಂಜಸ)ಾ_ರುವf=ಲ. ಆದR4ಂದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂTೆ ಆ ೇ ^ ೆ

ಸ ಾJರದ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂ3 ಸಂ3ೆ*:^ ^ಆಸುಇ 51 ೆಅ ೆ 2022, :ೆಂಗಳP ೆಂಗಳPರು, ರು, = ಾಂಕ 26.05.2025.

ಪ ಾವ ೆಯ ವ4^ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ 6 ೆ5 ೆಯ ಅಂ=ನ ( ಾH ಾ4ಗಳI, ೖಸೂರು ( ೆ ಮತು ಅಂ=ನ ವ*ವ ಾ0ಪಕ E ೇJಶಕರು, ಕ ಾJಟಕ ೈಮಗL ಅMವೃ=O Eಗಮ, :ೆಂಗಳPರು ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದO /ಾಡ ಾದ ಆ]ೋಪಗಳ ಕು4ತು ಭ Cಾ9Dಾರ ತಡ ಾQR-1988 ಕಲಂ 17(A) ರ"

ತE3ೆ ೈ ೊಳVಲು ಪW)ಾJನುಮXಯನು5 ೋ4ರುವ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯನು5 E]ಾಕ4^ ೆ.

ಕ ಾJಟಕ ]ಾಜ*rಾಲರ ಆsಾನು ಾರ ಮತು ಅವರ [ೆಸ4ನ ಸ6/-

(v.ಮಹಂTೇw) ಸ ಾJರದ ಅHೕನ ಾಯJದ J ^ಬxಂ= ಮತು ಆಡ1ತ ಸುyಾರUೆ ಇ ಾ3ೆ ( ೇ)ೆಗಳI-1)"

The impugned order draws sustenance from a Government Order

dated 11-04-2025. The Government order is affirming the findings

of the Enquiry Officer who had exonerated the said officer from the

allegations in the departmental enquiry. The conclusion of the

Enquiry Officer, is as follows:

"SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:

As discussed above, broadly the Charges made against the officer are that the CO has acted without authority in approving action plans to purchase cloth bags and that the CO has violated Zonal regulations (Amendment),2020 heritage conservation rules.

From the available statues, rules, GOs, the statements recorded, and documents marked these charges do not stand independently on their own for the following reasons:

The Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964, u/s 307 specifically empowers the DC to direct expenditure by Municipalities

The delegation of powers as per the GO No UDD MNE 2015 dated 11.11.2016 in fact designate the DC as tender approving authority.

The KTPP act u/s 4(h) gives express exemption to Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation and the same organization has been supplying uniforms and other stitched cloth to various govt organizations over the years.

The Zonal Regulations (Amendment), 2020 under Regulation 2, specifically mention that the State Government must constitute the Heritage Conservation Committee

There is no saving clause in these rules which enables the earlier heritage structures to continue, and the rules delineate the process for notifying heritage structures de- novo.

On examination of 16 witnesses and marking of 54 documents, no incriminating evidence has been recorded in the Present Enquiry against the Charged officer.

The Presenting Officer has failed to prove that the Charged Officer is guilty of the Charges as alleged. Therefore, in the light of all the above, I am of the opinion that the evidence collected during the course of this enquiry and the material brought on record through the documents examined and the statements of the witnesses examined does not substantiate any of these seven charges framed against the Charged Officer. I therefore conclusively hold that the Charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not proved.

Before parting with this report, in keeping with my conscience as an experienced judicial officer, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that bonafide actions of the Government officials like the Charged Officer need to be protected in public interest, and that subjecting of government officials to the rigours and rigmarole of Departmental Enquiries for the asking, would diminish the morale of such officials to undertake such initiatives and thereby would irreparably erode public faith and trust in the executive.

Public-spirited and action-oriented officers are the backbone of effective governance and societal progress. These individuals often go above and beyond their duties, making tough decisions to serve the public good and uphold justice. Their work, driven by integrity and dedication, ensures that the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability are maintained within administrative systems. However, when such officers are targeted for political vengeance, it not only undermines their morale but also disrupts the functioning of institutions.

Political retaliation against officers who prioritize the public's welfare over political interests sets a wrong precedent. It discourages value-based officers from discharging their official duties by taking right decisions at the right time for the right cause, effectively to protect the larger interest of the general public.

Proactive public servants committed to the public good are essential for effective governance. They often take risks to serve the public interest and uphold justice. However, when they are targeted for political reasons, it creates a climate of fear and discourages others from taking bold action.

This kind of political retaliation is detrimental to our democracy. It erodes public trust, hampers development, and obstructs justice. Instead of punishing honest and dedicated officers, we should protect them and encourage them to continue their important work. By safeguarding these individuals, we can strengthen our institutions and inspire future generations of public servants to prioritize the nation's welfare over personal or political gain.

In a democratic society, integrity and dedication must be celebrated, not punished. By safeguarding such officers from political vendettas, we strengthen the fabric of our institutions and inspire a generation of administrators who prioritize the nation's welfare over personal or political gains. Ensuring their protection is vital for long-term progress and justice

Sd/-

Dr. A. Gurumurthy District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) Enquiry Officer."

Since the order dated 11-04-2025 confirms the afore-quoted

findings of the Enquiry Officer, it assumes certain significance and

warrants closer scrutiny. The order reads as follows:

"Preamble:

Based on the Preliminary Enquiry Report read at (1) above submitted by Dr G. Ravishankar, IAS it was decided to initiate disciplinary action against Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Dasari, IAS, while working as Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru Dist, Mysuru for alleged irregularities in the procurement of eco- friendly cloth bags and undertaking construction of swimming

pool and installation of vitrified tiles in the official residence of Deputy Commissioner which is the heritage building. Accordingly, notice under rule 6(1) of the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 along with Article of Charges and the Statement of Imputations of misconduct in support of the Article of Charges (Annexure - I to IV) with supporting documents was issued vide notice dated 24.02.2023 read at (2) above to Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Dasari, IAS.

Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Dasari, IAS in the letter dated 04.05.2023 read at (3) above submitted her written statement of defence to the notice dated 24.02.2023 and has denied charges made against her and has requested to exonerate all the charges levelled against her.

The State Government had examined the reply submitted by Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Dasari, IAS. As the reply submitted by the officer was unsatisfactory, it was decided to inquire into the charges levelled against the officer and vide Government order dated:09.06.2023 read at (4) above Sri Yogendra Tripathi, IAS (Retd) was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Sri Ujjwal Kumar Ghosh, IAS was appointed as Presenting Officer under Rule 8(2) & 8(6)(c) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

In the Government Order read at (6) above Dr. A.Gurumurthy, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Inquiry officer in place of Sri Yogendra Tripathi, IAS (Retd.) and Sri S.B.Shettennavar, IAS, Managing Director, Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited, Bengaluru was appointed as Presenting Officer in place of Sri Ujjwal Kumar Ghosh, IAS.

The Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry report on 25.11.2024 read at (7) above and held that all the charges (Charge 1 to 7) are not proved. The same was examined and accepted by the Government.

Meanwhile Sri S.R Mahesh filed a Writ Petition No. 25133/2024 before the Hon'ble High of Karnataka praying to quash the proceedings/order No. DPAR 218 SAS 2022 dated

11.07.2024 and to appoint any Retired High Court Judge as Inquiry Officer in the above departmental enquiry.

The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated: 19.12.2024 read at (8) above disposed the Writ Petition stating as below:

"....5. The enquiry having been completed and the report submitted to the State Government/Disciplinary Authority, at this stage, the validity of changing the Enquiry officer cannot be gone into.

6. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit the objections with the State Government/Disciplinary Authority.

7. If such objections are filed, the State Government/Disciplinary Authority is to consider the same before passing the order either accepting or rejecting the report, in accordance with law. The said objections, if any, are to be filed within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order...."

In view of the Hon'ble High Court order, Sri S. R Mahesh filed objections read at (9) above and the same was examined. Further, it was decided to the drop the disciplinary proceedings and close the matter with an administrative warning to the officer. Hence, the following orders.

GOVERNMENT ORDER No. DPAR 218 SAS 2022, BENGALURU, DATED: 11 April, 2025.

In the circumstances detailed in the preamble, Smt. Rohini Sindhuri Dasari, IAS is exonerated of all the charges levelled against her vide notice dated 24.02.2023, and the departmental inquiry is hereby closed with an administrative warning given to the officer in this regard.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka

Sd/-11/4/2025 (T.Mahanthesh) Under Secretary to Government DPAR (Services-1)"

A careful perusal at the said order discloses that on the very same

set of allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the

officer, under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,

1969. Articles of charges were framed, a reply was submitted in

denial, and upon the reply being found unsatisfactory, an Enquiry

Officer was appointed to delve into the allegation. The enquiry

culminated in a report holding that the charges were not proved.

The finding thereafter accepted by the Government results in

closure of the proceedings, albeit, accompanied by an

administrative warning. The Enquiry Officer goes beyond his brief.

If he had stopped at finding the charges proved or not proved, it

would have been within what brief was entrusted to him. He would

observe that the officer is action oriented, value based and it is the

opinion of the Enquiry Officer that dedicated officers must be

protected and encouraged to continue their important work. This is

the foundational thought of the Enquiry Officer, which perhaps has

resulted in closure of the departmental enquiry itself. Be that as it

may.

9. The pivotal question that thus arises for

consideration is, whether such exoneration in a

departmental proceeding can legitimately constitute a

foundation for refusal of approval under Section 17A of the

Act? The factual canvas is neither complex nor obscure. The

genesis of the complaint lies in an alleged decision that resulted in

substantial loss to the State exchequer, a consequence

attributed not of inadvertence, but of a conscious exercise or

a decision taken by the Official Authority. The decisions are

quoted hereinabove. If the allegation pertains to a decision taken in

the discharge of official functions, it would indubitably fall within the

ambit of Section 17A. Notably, the request for approval was made

as early as the year 2021, long before the initiation of the

departmental enquiry itself, which commenced only on 24-02-2023

and concluded on 11-04-2025. In the present context, it is neither

necessary nor desirable to traverse the minutiae of the

departmental enquiry.

10. It would suffice to observe that the close of such

proceedings cannot, in law, operate as a protective shield,

insulating the officer from even the threshold scrutiny of criminal

investigation, the threshold scrutiny being an approval under

Section 17A of the Act and the consequent registration of the crime,

for the purpose of inquiry, enquiry or investigation. To hold

otherwise, would be to conflate two distinct legal regimes -

crime and a departmental enquiry, each governed by its own

objectives, standards, and evidentiary thresholds. The

complaint registered was neither vague or speculative. It did

set out, with clarity and documentary support, allegation

that prima facie discloses abuse of the office and

consequential financial loss to the state. If such material

does not even warrant the grant of approval to initiate

investigation under Section 17A, this Court is constrained to

ponder what would. The statutory safeguard under Section

17A is not intended to stifle legitimate inquiry into serious

allegations of corruption, it is designed to prevent frivolous

harassment not to foreclose accountability.

11. The coordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment

quoted supra, has clearly held that the order should bear

application of mind answering every contention in the complaint. If

the earlier order that formed the subject matter of writ

petition is juxtaposed with the order that forms the subject

matter of the present petition, it is verbatim similar to the

earlier order, except the statement that the Officer has been

exonerated in a departmental enquiry. If any officer is

exonerated in a departmental enquiry, it is no law that even

the crime cannot be registered.

12. Jurisprudence with regard to this issue is replete with the

latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KARNATAKA

LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT v.

CHANDRASHEKAR1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....

6. In Radheshyam Kejriwal, the raid on the premises of the appellant therein, by the Enforcement Directorate gave rise to proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Initially, a show-cause notice was issued by the Director of the Enforcement Directorate proposing adjudication

2026 SCC OnLine SC 13

proceedings under Section 51 of the FERA, which, after explanation received was concluded with a decision taken by the Adjudicating Officer that the contravention of the provisions alleged cannot be sustained since the transaction itself is not proved. The said order became final for reason of the Enforcement Directorate having not challenged it. Later, on the same set of facts, as enabled under Section 56 of the FERA criminal proceedings were initiated, which even as per the enactment could be continued without any prejudice to any award of penalty by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 51 of the FERA. It is in this context that the three-Judge Bench, by a majority, held inter alia that though the adjudication and criminal proceedings are independent of each other, if in the former the offender is exonerated on merits then the criminal prosecution also comes to an inevitable end. It was also categorically found that if the exoneration in the adjudication proceeding is on a technical ground and not on merits, the prosecution could continue.

7. In Radheshyam Kejriwal the adjudication proceedings and the criminal proceedings were under the FERA, one for penalty; to recoup the economic loss caused by the transaction contravening the provisions of the statute and the other, prosecution; to provide penal consequences as a deterrent measure. The subject matter of the offence alleged in both proceedings was the contravention of the provisions of the statute through the transaction detected. When the adjudication proceedings found the transaction alleged to have not taken place, then it cuts at the root of the prosecution too. Other decisions under the FERA, where the two proceedings of adjudication and prosecution were found to be independent; the decision in one having no bearing on the other, were noticed. So were the decisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 noticed, wherein, when the penalty imposed on a presumed violation of the provisions of the I.T. Act was set aside by the Tribunal; the last fact-finding authority under the scheme of the I.T. Act, for that reason alone the prosecution was found redundant and quashed. Radheshyam Kejriwal culled out the principles in the following manner:

38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding.

If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.

[underlining by us for emphasis]

8. In Radheshyam Kejriwal the very substratum of the allegation of violation of the provisions of FERA was found to be non-existent, an adjudication on merits that the transaction

alleged had not occurred. In the instant case the Enquiry Report found that for reason of the Officer in charge of the trap having not been examined, the department was unable to establish the charge, not at all an exoneration on merits, but more a discharge for lack of diligence. The ratio decidendi of that case cannot be extended to every situation where a statute provides for a civil liability and a criminal liability, in which event Courts would be presuming what logically follows from the finding, without any application on the facts.

9. In a disciplinary enquiry the employer satisfies itself as to whether the misconduct alleged is proved and if proved, decides on the proportionate punishment that should be imposed; both of which are in the exclusive domain of the employer, to be determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In a criminal prosecution launched what assumes significance is the criminality of the act complained of or detected which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both are independent of each other not only for reason of the nature of the proceedings and the standard of proof, but also for reason of the adjudication being carried on by two different entities, regulated by a different set of rules and more importantly decided on the basis of the evidence led in the independent proceedings. If evidence is not led properly in one case, it cannot govern the decision in the other case where evidence is led separately and independently.

10. No doubt, the principles in Radheshyam Kejriwal are applicable in a disciplinary inquiry, which was the specific question considered in Ajay Kumar Tyagi; interestingly by the very same Hon'ble Judge who authored the majority judgment in Radheshyam Kejriwal. True, the earlier decision was not noticed in the latter decision; according to us with just cause since there were distinctions on facts.

11. Ajay Kumar Tyagi was a case in which a successful trap was laid and there was exoneration in the enquiry conducted without a final order by the Disciplinary Authority. Therein the Disciplinary Authority had not passed an order, in deference to the pending criminal prosecution, which action of deferment was unsuccessfully challenged in a writ petition by the delinquent. Then a further writ petition was filed challenging the continuance of the criminal prosecution on the ground of

exoneration in the Enquiry Report, which stood allowed. The Disciplinary Authority then passed an order exonerating the delinquent, subject to a challenge to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. In the SLP filed against the order of quashing there was a reference to a larger Bench noting the divergence of opinion with regard to the quashing of a prosecution based on exoneration in a disciplinary proceeding. Even before answering the reference the larger Bench found the quashing to be wrong insofar as the Disciplinary Authority having power to differ from the findings in the report of enquiry and the High Court, in that case having upheld the action of the Disciplinary Authority, keeping in abeyance the final order. We pause here to notice that herein the Disciplinary Authority passed an order concurring with the findings in the Enquiry Report on 08.07.2024, produced as Annexure R-1, with a rider that the order is subject to the proceedings in the criminal case, the consequences of which would necessarily follow.

12. The reference too was answered in Ajay Kumar Tyagi. A two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar was referred to wherein the criminal prosecution was quashed when the departmental proceedings concluded in exoneration. In P.S. Rajya, the allegation was of possession of assets disproportionate to the source of income. The Central Vigilance Commission dealt with the charge and in its elaborate report concluded that the valuation report on which CBI placed reliance is of doubtful nature. The Court on facts found that the value given as a base for the chargesheet was not the value given in the reports subsequently given by the valuers. The decision in P.S. Rajya relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; the water shed decision in invocation of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing criminal prosecution, held that the prosecution in that case should be quashed for more than one reason as laid down in Bhajan Lal. Ajay Kumar Tyagi categorically held that the quashing of criminal proceedings in P.S. Rajya was not merely on account of the exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings. Referring to a number of decisions, it was held so in paragraphs 24 & 25 which are extracted hereunder:

"24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case (1996) 9 SCC 1. In fact,

there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case cannot be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer based on those evidence.

25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy."

13. We are of the opinion that in the present case the distinction as brought out in Ajay Kumar Tyagi squarely applies and the ratio decidendi therein is not regulated by the ratio of the earlier judgment in Radheshyam Kejriwal. In Radheshyam Kejriwal, the adjudication proceedings and the prosecution were both by the very same entity, the Enforcement Directorate under the FERA. In Ajay Kumar Tyagi, the allegation was of a demand and acceptance of bribe in which a trap was laid, and the prosecution was commenced and continued by the ACB while the departmental proceedings were by the Delhi Jal Board under which the delinquent employee worked. Identical is the fact in this case where the ACB laid the trap, commenced and continued the criminal proceedings, at the behest of the appellant, while the department carried on with the enquiry. The findings in

the enquiry report also do not persuade us to quash the criminal proceedings as we would presently notice.

14. At the outset, we cannot but reiterate that the enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings is not conclusive of the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent employee, which finding is in the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer is appointed only as a convenient measure to bring on record the allegations against the delinquent employee and the proof thereof and to ensure an opportunity to the delinquent employee to contest and defend the same by cross-examination of the witnesses proffered by the department and even production of further evidence, in defense. The enquiry officer, strictly speaking, merely records the evidence and the finding entered on the basis of the evidence led at the enquiry does not have any bearing on the final decision of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority takes the ultimate call as to whether to concur with the findings of the enquiry authority or to differ therefrom. On a decision being taken to differ from the findings in the enquiry report as to the guilt of the delinquent employee, if it is in favour of the delinquent employee nothing more needs to be done since the enquiry stands closed exonerating the employee of the charges levelled. If the decision is to concur with the finding of guilt by the Enquiry Officer, then a show-cause is issued with the copy of the Enquiry Report. However, while differing from the finding of exoneration in the enquiry report, necessarily the disciplinary authority will not only have to issue a show- cause against the delinquent employee, with a copy of the Enquiry Report, but the show-cause notice also has to specifically bring to attention of the delinquent, the aspects on which the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, based on the facts discovered in the enquiry so as to afford the delinquent employee an opportunity to proffer his defense to the same.

15. Having thus stated the law regulating the final decision in a departmental enquiry, we cannot but notice that in the present case, there is a final order produced as passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned

Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that a retired District Judge was the Enquiry Officer, which according to us gives the enquiry no higher sanctity than that would be conferred on any enquiry report in any disciplinary proceeding carried out by a person not trained in law. The Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent person who would have no connection with the management to ensure against any allegation of bias. A retired judicial officer being appointed as an enquiry officer does not confer the enquiry report any higher value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to such reports. We cannot but observe that in this case the Enquiry Officer fell into an error by requiring proof at a higher level than that necessary under preponderance of probabilities and so did the Disciplinary Authority, in concurring with the same.

16. We also notice the specific findings in the enquiry report. The exoneration was on the basis of two aspects, one, the Inspector of the ACB who carried out the trap having not been examined and the other, two independent witnesses accompanying the trap team having stated that they were standing outside the office room wherein the handing over of the bribe took place. The first ground of the Inspector not having been examined, according to us, based on the preponderance of probabilities, is not imperative, especially when the two independent witnesses were examined. More so, insofar as the department not being at fault since three summons were taken out and a further request was made again for summoning the witness, which was declined by the Enquiry Officer. We cannot but notice that there would be no consequence in not responding to a summons in departmental proceedings, while a like failure in criminal proceedings would be more drastic. The criminal court has ample powers to ensure the presence of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which the Enquiry Officer does not possess. In this context, the fact that the prosecuting agency and the one carrying on the departmental enquiry being two entities assumes significance. Further, here the trap was laid by the ACB, and the prosecution was conducted at the behest of the Lokayukta, and we cannot presume or anticipate any laxity on the prosecuting agency of not bringing the Inspector to the box, before the criminal court.

More pertinently we cannot, on such anticipated laxity put an end to the prosecution.

17. We looked at the evidence laid at the enquiry, not to regulate the order in the departmental proceedings which is not challenged before us, but to satisfy ourselves and to understand whether there is total exoneration on merits, which we find to be absent. In the present case, the witnesses proffered by the department where, (i) the complainant; the contractor who complained of the demand of bribe and (ii) two independent witnesses, government officers in two different departments who accompanied the trap team. PW-1, the complainant categorically stated that a bribe was demanded from him of Rupees ten thousand to clear five bills at the rate of Rupees two thousand each. He complained to the ACB whose Inspector marked the notes, powdered them and put them in a packet, after noting down the numbers to later identify them. The trap team along with the complainant and two witnesses went to the office of the delinquent employee. The complainant went inside the office room wherein he handed over the packet containing the money to the delinquent employee, who counted and put it in his pant's pocket, clearly spoken of by the complainant at the enquiry. The complainant gave the signal as agreed upon, a missed call on the mobile, when the trap team went in, checked the pockets of the delinquent employee, recovered the packet with the money and when the hands of the delinquent employee were dipped in the solution earlier prepared, the colour changed bringing forth the taint.

18. PW-2 and PW-3 were the independent witnesses who were standing outside the office room when the complainant went in. They deposed that on the signal being given, the officers went inside the room and the witnesses followed. They witnessed the money being taken out from the pocket of the delinquent and the delinquent's hands being dipped in a solution which displayed the tainted colour. Even without the examination of the Inspector who laid the trap we are of the opinion that there was sufficient proof on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to find the delinquent guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe. The complainant and the independent witnesses have spoken about the incident of the successful trap laid.

19. On the principles of law as stated hereinabove and also on the peculiar facts coming out from the above case, we are not convinced that this is a fit case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry. We find the decision in Ajay Kumar Tyagi to be squarely applicable. The appeal stands allowed permitting the continuation of criminal proceedings. We make it clear that since the disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report, there cannot be reopening of the same based on the findings hereinabove; but a conviction in the criminal case would bring in consequences as mandated by rules regulating the service, specifically reserved in the order of the disciplinary authority, Annexure R-1."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, any

amount of defence projected by the State in its application by way

of statement of objections would be of no avail.

13. The controversy, that arises for consideration in

the present lis, is one that strikes at the very heart of public

probity. It concerns allegations of corruption and

consequent loss to the State exchequer. What is projected is

not a mere administrative lapse, but a decision whose

ramifications allegedly extend to grave financial detriment

to public funds. A cloth bag available in the open market at a

modest price of ₹13 per unit is sought to be procured at an

inflated rate of ₹52 per bag, pursuant to a decision

attributed to the Deputy Commissioner. Compounding the

gravity of the matter, is the allegation that funds earmarked

for welfare schemes intended to benefit the economically

vulnerable sections within the Grama Panchayath, were

diverted to this procurement, thereby inflicting substantial

loss upon the public treasury. Such a decision, by its very

nature and consequence, cannot be placed beyond the pale

of scrutiny under the Provisions in the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The approval sought under Section

17A, pertains to a case where which, at least prima facie

discloses elements of corruption. In such circumstances, it

becomes imperative for this Court to advert to the judgment of the

Apex Court, which illuminate the manner in which allegations of

corruption are to be approached and adjudicated. In a public

interest litigation, the Apex Court notices various of its decisions in

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. UNION

INDIA2 and holds as follows:-

2026 SCC OnLine SC 57

".... .... ....

7.1. In the case of Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288 ("Sheonandan Paswan"), E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) in the majority opinion, deciding on the correctness of an order of the Magistrate Court allowing for the withdrawal of prosecution in a case relating to allegations of corruption, noted the need to balance probity in public life by convicting corrupt public servants on one hand with a measured approach that ensures only genuine cases lead to a conviction on the other, by observing that:

"37. ... Corruption, particularly at high places should be put down with a heavy hand. But our passion to do so should not overtake reason. The court always acts on the material before it and if it finds that the material is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime, it has to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be, notwithstanding the fact that the crime complained of is a grave one. ..."

7.2. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 ("Bhajan Lal"), which laid down the now-familiar seven-prong indicative test as to when the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") could be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding, Ratnavel Pandian, J. rightly observed that:

"4. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of the law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is, or how rich he may be.

xxx

9. Mere rhetorical preaching of apostolic sermons listing out the evils of corruption and raising slogans with catch words are of no use in the absence of practical and effective steps to eradicate them; because evil tolerated is evil propagated.

10. At the same time, one should also be alive to cases where false and frivolous accusations of corruption are maliciously made against an adversary exposing him to social ridicule and obloquy with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance due to past animosity or personal pique or merely out of spite regardless of the fact whether the proceedings will ultimately culminate into conviction or not.

7.3. In Vineet Narain, this Court held that:

"56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under-developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries: R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

57. Of course, the necessity of desirable procedures evolved by court rules to ensure that such a litigation is properly conducted and confined only to mattes of public interest is obvious. This is the effort made in these proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution in exercise of powers conferred on this Court for doing complete justice in a cause. It cannot be doubted that there is a serious human rights aspect involved in such a proceeding because the prevailing corruption in public life, if permitted to continue unchecked, has ultimately the deleterious effect of eroding the Indian polity."

(underlining by me)

7.4. In the case of J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 ("Jayalalitha"), Nanavati, J. when discussing the purpose behind the enactment of the Act held as under:

"15. Corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of the moral fabric of the society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest, as the persons occupying high posts in the Government by misusing their power due to corruption can cause considerable damage to the national economy, national interest and image of the country."

7.5. Further, Sethi, J. in State of M.P v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 ("Ram Singh"), observed as under:

"8. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."

7.6. In the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court speaking through K.T Thomas, J. remarked on the possibility of a public servant who has been convicted of corruption continuing to hold office during the pendency of an appeal against the conviction, by stating that:

"12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the

institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction."

7.7. In the case of State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 ("Shambhu Dayal Nagar"), Dalveer Bhandari, J. noted that:

"32. It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke."

7.8. This Court, speaking through Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. in State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna DattatryaKumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384 ("Kumbhar"), wherein the suspension of the conviction of the respondent therein for offences under the Act was challenged, observed that:

"17. The aforesaid order is therefore, certainly not sustainable in law if examined in light of the aforementioned judgments of this Court. Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, In the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. ..."

7.9. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 ("Manohar Lal Sharma"), Lodha, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that:

"34. The abuse of public office for private gain has grown in scope and scale and hit the nation badly. Corruption reduces revenue; it slows down economic activity and holds back economic growth. The biggest loss that may occur to the nation due to corruption is loss of confidence in the democracy and weakening of rule of law.

35. In recent times, there has been concern over the need to ensure that the corridors of power remain untainted by corruption or nepotism and that there is optimum utilization of resources and funds for their intended purposes.

36. In 350 B.C.E., Aristotle suggested in the "Politics" that to protect the treasury from being defrauded, let all money be issued openly in front of the whole city, and let copies of the accounts be deposited in various wards. What Aristotle said centuries back may not be practicable today but for successful working of the democracy it is essential that public revenues are not defrauded and public servants do not indulge in bribery and corruption and if they do, the allegations of corruption are inquired into fairly, properly and promptly and those who are guilty are brought to book."

7.10. Further, in Subramanian Swamy, R.M Lodha, C.J. held that:

"72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down a corrupt public servant, however high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crimedoers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.""

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgment, drawing upon a rich

tapestry of precedents, has underscored the delicate yet crucial

balance that Courts must maintain between the imperative of

rooting out corruption and necessity of ensuring that only cases

supported by credible material culminate in prosecution. At the

same time, the court has consistently sounded a note of caution

that corruption, particularly in public life, is not a mere aberration,

but a corrosive force that erodes the very foundations of

governance, undermines public confidence, and impairs the

economic and moral fabric of the nation. The jurisprudence of the

Apex Court resounds with a singular unambiguous theme,

corruption is an insidious menace, variously described as

cancer, a plague, and a contagion that if left unchecked, has

the potential to destabilise the polity and corrode democratic

institutions. The Apex Court has unequivocally held that

corruption is an enemy of the nation and that pursuit,

detection and punishment of corrupt public servants,

irrespective of their rank or stature, is not merely

permissible, but a constitutional and statutory imperative

under the Act.

14. In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to notice Section

17A of the Act. It reads as follows:

"17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.--(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month."

Section 17A was introduced by way of amendment in the year

2018, was conceived as a safeguard to shield honest public

servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecution arising out of

bonafide decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.

However, such a provision was never intended to operate, as a

protective cloak for those, against whom, credible allegations of

corruption are laid, albeit, prima facie. It is a shield for the

innocent, not a sanctuary for the culpable.

15. In the case at hand, what emerges is not a frivolous

accusation, but a set of allegations that warrant, at the very least, a

thorough and impartial investigation. The spectre of corruption

once raised, on the basis of material placed on record,

cannot be summarily extinguished at the threshold. It must

be allowed to unfold through the process of investigation,

which alone can ascertain the truth. It is equally well settled

that a mere exoneration of an officer in departmental proceedings

cannot by itself foreclose the initiation of criminal investigation on

the same set of facts. Departmental proceedings and criminal

prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct

standards of proof and objectives. The closure of one does

not ipso facto extinguish the other. The impugned order, in the

considerate view of the Court is perfunctory, bereft of substantive

reasoning and reflective of mechanical exercise of power. It fails to

engage with the gravity of the allegation or material on record and

thus, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

16. Ordinarily, this Court would have deemed it appropriate

to remit the matter back to the Government for a fresh

consideration. However, in the peculiar facts of the present

case, render such a course, both unnecessary and

unwarranted. The coordinate bench had already issued a

clear mandate to reconsider the matter in accordance with

law. Yet, the Government instead of undertaking a

meaningful re-evaluation, has chosen to reiterate its earlier

position, albeit, with a little justification. In the

circumstances, a further remand would serve no fruitful

purpose and would only prolong the process to the

detriment of justice. This Court, therefore deems it appropriate,

in the interest of justice, to direct the 1st respondent/Government

to accord approval for the registration of the FIR and for conduct of

an investigation, in accordance with law.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) Order bearing No.CSUI 51 SAS 2022 dated 26-05-2025 passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed.

(iii) Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent to grant necessary approval as sought for by the petitioner under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the light of the observations made in the course of the order, within an outer limit of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) All further proceedings be regulated in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp/CT:MJ