SHASHI KUMAR SHIVANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is listed for Orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. In terms of the Order dated 03.07.2020, the production of the authenticated copy of Annexure-D was dispensed subject to furnishing the same within four weeks. However, since the petition is taken up for final disposal, this requirement is also dispensed.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the consent accorded by the respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (henceforth referred as ' DSPE Act , 1946') permitting the respondent No.3 to investigate all purported violations of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (henceforth referred to as ' PC Act , 1988'), by Mr. D.K. Shivakumar and other officials of the Government of Karnataka and to identify and investigate all persons involved in the alleged violation of the provisions of the PC Act , 1988.

(3.) The writ petition sets out that the petitioner is employed as a Chief Manager at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and is drawing a salary of Rs.2,50,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed that his father was a Joint Director of Health Services, Government of Karnataka, and had earned considerable properties during his tenure. The petitioner claims that he had succeeded to the properties of his father and had led a honest and meaningful life. He claimed that the premises of Mr. D.K. Shivakumar was raided during August 2017 and the Income Tax department had filed four complaints before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which were transferred to the Special Court. The petitioner claimed that he was not arraigned as an accused in any of those cases. He further claimed that the accused in three cases were discharged while the fourth complaint in Spl. C.C. No.759/2018 was stayed by this Court. It is stated that the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi, based on the fourth complaint that was stayed by this Court, commenced investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'PMLA, 2002'). The Enforcement Directorate after commencing the investigation, wrote a letter dated 09.09.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, stating that Mr. D.K. Shivakumar and others appeared to have violated the provisions of the PC Act , 1988 when they were working in the Government of Karnataka and that the Enforcement Directorate had shared the same information with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and consequently the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka was requested to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.1 sought an opinion of the Advocate General of Karnataka who gave his opinion on 25.09.2019. The learned Advocate General in his opinion had indicated that the Government Agency had to investigate as to what was the offence committed by the public servant and whether the offence related to any recommendation or decision taken by such public servant and that only in such case the relevant provisions of the PC Act , 1988 would apply. The learned Advocate General is also stated to have mentioned in his opinion that the question of granting sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would arise only when a charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency.