IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

W.P.No.53949/2016 (S – KAT)

BETWEEN :

SRI G.D.JAYARAMA

S/O LATE M.A.DEVAIAH

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

R/AT No.111, MLA LAYOUT,

R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560032

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISH K., ADV. FOR SRI M.S.BHAGWAT, ADV.)

AND :

1 .

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,

PORTS AND INLAND WATER

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001

2 .

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

M.S.BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R-1;

SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2.)

- 2 -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED BY THE

HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW

APPLICATION No.2286/2012 AS PRAYED FOR BEFORE THE

TRIBUNAL.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

22.9.2016

passed

by

the

Karnataka

State

Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short), Bangalore,

wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed

by the petitioner.

2.

This case has a chequered history. The

genesis of the case relates to the complaint filed by one

Sri.R.Ganesh complaint against the petitioner before the

police inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the

petitioner demanded bribe amount to do an official

favour when he was working in the BDA as an Asst.

Executive Engineer. Immediately on receipt of the

complaint, trap was conducted by the Lokayukta police

- 3 -

on 11.5.2006. The chemical test result was found

negative. No alleged bribe amount was recovered from

the petitioner. However, the petitioner was placed

under suspension by respondent No.1 in respect of the

said alleged incident on 6.7.2006. Later on, the said

order was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into

service on 7.10.2006. The Addl. Director General of

Police, Lokayukta, after concluding the investigation

sought for sanction from the 1^st respondent to file

charge sheet against the petitioner under the

provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’

for short). The respondent No.1 refused to accord

sanction to prosecute the petitioner on the ground that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.

Such repeated requests were made by the Addl. Director

General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta on four

occasions and all such requests were rejected by the

respondent No.1. The period of suspension of petitioner

was regularized on 8.10.2009.

- 4 -

3.

Subsequently on 18.1.2010 the respondent

No.1 suo moto examined the file and accorded sanction

for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19 of the

Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this

court in W.P.No.1986/2010 challenging the said action

of the respondent No.1. The writ court allowed the Writ

Petition quashing the order of the respondent No.1.

Consequently, the order of sanction was cancelled. Not

withstanding the same, the respondent No.2 has

initiated suo moto action calling for an explanation from

the petitioner as to why recommendation should not

be made to the competent Authority for initiating the

Departmental enquiry, to which explanation was

submitted by the petitioner requesting to drop the said

proceedings initiated against him. In the meantime,

this court in W.P.No.36844/2011 vide order dated

3.11.2011 quashed the entire proceedings in Spl.

C.C.No.26/2010 and the said order has reached finality.

Subsequent to which the respondent No.1 after

- 5 -

considering the merits the