A PUTTARAJAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of the order of suspension which is produced as Annexure-A in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as Assistant, Revenue Officer in the bangalore City Corporation, Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore. The officers of the Lokayukta having found that the petitioner is possessing the properties disproportionate to his income, registered a case against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similarly the Lokayukta registered one more case against another employee sri C. Andani having found that he was also possessing the properties disproportionate to his income. Pursuant to these proceedings the Corporation kept both the petitioner and Sri C. Andani under suspension under Rule 10 (l) (b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 until further orders awaiting the report from the Lokayukta. Thereafter, after some time the Corporation wrote a letter to the Lokayukta on 8-1-2001 as per Annexure-C regarding revocation of suspension in respect of both the officers. Pursuant to this the Additional Director General of Police attached to the office of the Karnataka Lokayukta had written a letter to the Commissioner to release the ARO i. e. , one Sri C. Andani from suspension with an observation that he may be posted to a post other than the one he was working at the time of raid. So far as the petitioner is concerned no communication has been sent from the office of the Lokayukta to the Corporation.

(3.) IN order to know whether the Additional Director General of" Police has on his own directed the Corporation to revoke the suspension, I called upon the Government Advocate to produce the records. From the records I find that the Upalokayukta has directed to revoke the suspension of one Sri C. Andani and he has not passed any order regarding revocation of suspension insofar as the petitioner is concerned. From the files produced I find that the properties found in the house of Sri C. Andani at the time of raid are much more than those found in the house of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has examined about 34 witnesses on his behalf during the investigation. When such being the case, it is not known why the office of the Lokayukta passed an order regarding revocation of suspension only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.