N K PALAKSHAPPA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9-11-1983 passed by the Respondent-State of Karnataka dismissing him from service. An order of dismissal was passed earlier after a departmental enquiry on the charge that the petitioner had demanded and received bribe from one Mahabaleswaraiah and therefore acted in a manner unbecoming a Government Official and this Court remanded the matter due to some irregularities in the enquiry. After the remand, the impugned order is passed. It is contended for the petitioner that the present order is also vitiated for the following reasons :--

(2.) In fact, none of the grounds urged should be heard in this second round of litigation, as, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition had found fault with the final order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal from the stage at which the fault had occurred in the procedure. However, none of the grounds urged are tenable. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution will not re-appreciate the evidence on record nor overlook the fact that it is a trap case arranged by the Vigilance Commission and the petitioner was caught red-handed receiving money from Mahabaleswaraiah for supplying Silver Alloy to fill the cavity in his tooth, which the Government doctor was not expected to do. As a Dental Surgeon in a Government hospital, he was supposed to utilise the Government stock and if there was no stock, he must have left it to the patient to secure the metal alloy. To have a financial transaction with the patient is not expected of the Government servant. In that circumstance, the receipt of money has been held to be receipt of bribe as the same had been demanded 3 or 4 days earlier.

(3.) Similarly, there is no substance in the allegation that his reply had not been considered by the Government before passing the impugned order. There is no reference to the points made out in the reply. There is an assertion in the impugned order that his reply had been perused and found not tenable. That is more than enough consideration. What is required is application of mind to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice.