HUKUMUDDIN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as a peon in Nada Kacheri, Tavaragere Village, is calling into question the fourth respondent's enquiry report, dated 30-11-2016 (Annexure-G) and the third respondent's letter, dated 3-12-2016 (Annexure-H) recommending to the Government to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.

(2.) Sri H.C. Shivaramu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only working as a peon and that therefore he has no power whatsoever to effect the mutation entry sought by the de facto complainant. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner himself has deposed that the petitioner does not have the power to effect the mutation entry in the revenue records. He submits that it is nobody's case that the petitioner ever demanded and received any bribe amount.

(3.) He submits that the petitioner is already acquitted in Special Case (PC) No. 4 of 2011 by the Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal. As the witnesses examined before the Criminal Court and before the Enquiry Officer are the same, materials relied upon before the two forums are the same. The Enquiry Officer is not justified in arriving at conclusions, which are at variance with the conclusions reached by the Sessions Court. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy and Another Vs. Superintendent of Police and Another, (2015) 2 SCC 365. Head Note 'B' of the said decision read out by Sri H.C. Shivaramu is extracted herein below: