RAMESH MALLI Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 30/9/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short the Tribunal) in Application Number 10826/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner questioning the order of discharge is dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was selected and appointed as Police Constable (Wireless) in the respondent No.2-Department by order dtd. 13/6/2017. By notification dtd. 22/2/2018 (Annexure-A5), Police Department invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of Sub Inspector (Civil) (Male and Female) and it also provided an opportunity to the in-service candidates. The petitioner being the in-service candidate made application for the post of Sub Inspector in pursuance to the above said notification on obtaining no objection from the Department. The petitioner was issued with admission ticket for the competitive examination, scheduled to be held on 13/1/2019. The CCB Police, Bengaluru had received information that some persons had conspired for leakage of question paper of written examination of PSI scheduled to be held on 13/1/2019 and contacting the candidates assuring question papers and answers by collecting Rs.30.00 lakhs. In that regard Crime No. 291/2019 came to be registered on 12/1/2019. In connection with the above complaint the CCB Police had taken the petitioner into custody along with others for interrogation on 28/1/2019. On 29/1/2019 the petitioner was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody till 11/2/2019. Subsequently he was granted bail and was released on 2/2/2019. It is stated that thereafter petitioner was not taken to duty.

(3.) It is submitted that the respondent No.2 obtained a report from the Police Inspector (Wireless), District Control Room, Bengaluru, against the petitioner. Based on the said report, Annexure-A13 was passed under Rule 6 of Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short '1977 Rules') discharging the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order of discharge the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No. 10826/2019 contending that the order of discharge is wholly illegal and it is a stigmatic order. The Tribunal by impugned order dtd. 30/9/2021 dismissed the application holding that the authorities have found the petitioner to be unsuitable to hold the post for the reasons stated in the impugned order of discharge. Aggrieved by both the order of discharge as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.