BABU NAGAPPA SULEBHAVI Vs. PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the orders in the writ petition was dictated on 21.03.2019, before putting our signatures, we noticed that the matter requires re-hearing and accordingly, heard the matter afresh on 10.04.2019 and proceeded to pass the order.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing Annexure-J/Enquiry Report dated 08.12.2015, Annexure- K/recommendation of Lokayukta dated 04.01.2016 and Annexure-O/order of dismissal from service dated 20.12.2016.

(3.) The petitioner was working as Sanitary Mukadum in Belagavi Municipal Corporation. While he was working as such, one Sameeulla Mohammed Rafiq Mulla made a complaint before the 3rd respondent that the petitioner demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification and agreed to receive Rs.700/- for issuance of Trade License for running a Xerox and Computer typing shop. A complaint was registered in Lokayukta as Crime No.17 of 2011 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act' for short). The DGO was trapped on 21.07.2011 while the petitioner was accepting Rs.700/- as bribe from the complainant, which was seized from the petitioner's possession. On the said incident, it is stated that the third respondent Lokayukta filed a charge sheet in Special C.C. No.26 of 2012 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner was acquitted of the offences by judgment dated 08.09.2014 in Spl.Case No.26 of 2012. Thereafter, Government by its order dated 27.11.2012 referred the matter to Upa Lokayukta for enquiry under Rule 14(a) of the CCA Rules. The third respondent-Upa Lokayukta nominated 4th respondent as Enquiry Officer who issued articles of charges on 04.01.2013. The 4th respondent after conducting full-fledged enquiry submitted report dated 08.12.2015. The third respondent-Upa Lokayukta along with his recommendation dated 04.01.2016 forwarded the Enquiry report to the Director of Municipal Administration. The second respondent issued second show cause notice dated 03.11.2016 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the report of the Upa Lokayukta should not be accepted and why punishment under Rule 8 (vii) of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules' for short) should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. The second respondent on consideration of the material on record and the contentions raised in the explanation to the second show cause notice, passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 imposing punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 8(viii) of the CCA Rules.