B S DWARAKANATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sri Dwarakanath is seeking direction for a CBI enquiry in Crime N. 427/99 on the file of JC Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, on the following facts.

(2.) PETITIONER who is working as a Technical Officer incharge of storage point, Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation, Whitefield, Bangalore (for short Corporation), was issued with a show cause notice and a reply was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him in the matter for negligence. An enquiry was conducted. Petitioner complains about the defects in the enquiry. Petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,01,670/- being the amount of loss alleged to have been caused by him on the account of alleged negligence on his part. An appeal was filed to the authorities. Petitioner refers to the details of the appeal procedure in paras 5 and 6. Petitioner states that the then Managing Director Sri K. L. Negi was transferred from Corporation to another department and in his place one Sri A. P. Joshi was posted as the Managing Director of the Corporation. Petitioner says that Sri Joshi has tampered with the Board note put up by earlier Managing Director to suit his needs. He says that the change of Board note amounts to an offence in terms of the provisions under Indian Penal Code. He filed an appropriate complaint and the same is registered. He has sought for reference under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. for investigation. An order was passed ordering reference in the matter. An investigation was in progress and the petitioner states that he is not likely to get justice with the police authorities and therefore he wants a CBI enquiry. He refers to a letter in this regard by the then Director General and Inspector General of Police to the Commissioner of Police in terms of Annexure-C. He has made allegations against the then Director General and Inspector General of Police Sri T. Srinivasulu. With these facts he wants this Court to interfere in the matter.

(3.) RESPONDENT-STATE Government filed their statement of objections and they say that no case is made out by the petitioner. They also deny the various allegations made therein. Subsequently they also say that the respondent 2 did not interfere with the investigation. An additional statement of objection was filed in which it was stated that a B report has been submitted and the same being enquired into by the Magistrate. The B report is also filed in the case on hand.