RAVIKUMAR R Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 - Lokayuktha submitted a report under Sec. 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for brevity, "1984 Act") to respondent No.1 seeking for entrustment of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was holding unaccounted amount of Rs.18,300.00 by indulging in illegal activities and thus, alleged the said action of the petitioner amounts to dereliction of duty. It is further alleged in the report that when the petitioner was discharging his duties as Labour Inspector, Circle-1 in the Labour Office, Udupi at Rajathadari, Manipal, in order to issue fresh license/renewal of license for shops and commercial establishments has received bribe from the applicants who have submitted applications for the same. Based on the credible information, the concerned Superintendent of Police of Lokayuktha, Udupi has registered case in Crime No.7/2014 under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "1988 Act") and recovered a sum of Rs.18,300.00 from the petitioner. Thereafter, a report has been forwarded by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. However, after perusal of the report, the Disciplinary Authority, who being the Sanctioning Authority, has refused to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide order dtd. 9/11/2015. The Investigating Officer, having not satisfied with the rejection order, has once again sought for review of the order passed by the Sanctioning Authority and requested to accord sanction vide letter dtd. 12/2/2016. However, the said proposal was also rejected on 28/4/2016 and subsequently, on 16/12/2016. After rejection of three proposals by the Sanctioning Authority, the Lokayukta has challenged the same in W.P.No.30034/2017 before this Court and the same is pending consideration.

(3.) The petitioner has also challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings in Crime No.7/2014 in Criminal Petition No.5249/2014, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order observing that quashing of complaint does not warrant as it would die on its own since the prosecution has been refused against the petitioner by the Sanctioning Authority. Despite, respondent No.2 has submitted a report under Sec. 12(3) of the 1984 Act on 27/10/2022 and by relying on the opinion of the Law Department, the entrustment order was issued as per impugned order dtd. 6/7/2023 entrusting respondent No.2 to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and followed by the same, the impugned Articles of charges have been framed against the petitioner on 31/8/2023, which was received by the petitioner on 4/10/2023.