Legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.9.2012 is called in question in this appeal by the Appellant – Corporation.

2. Heard Sri S.S. Ramadas, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. The facts leading to this appeal is as under:

The first respondent was working as Junior Engineer in the Appellant – Corporation. On 21.11.1992 a trap was laid by the Lokayuktha alleging that respondent No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.100/- as bribe from one K.P. Ramalingaiah for showing official favour to him. Based on the trap on 21.11.92 and the report of the Inspector General of Police of Lokayuktha, the first respondent was kept under suspension with effect from 14.12.92 pending consideration of the departmental enquiry.

The appellant referred the matter to the Upalokayuktha to hold an enquiry. The Upalokayuktha appointed an Enquiry Officer on his behalf to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges leveled against the first respondent has not been proved. Inspite of the same, the Upalokayuktha has sent his own opinion disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Of