Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.8640 OF 2013 (S - DIS) BETWEEN:
A.N.PATTAN S/O SRI.NAGAPPA BALAKRISHNA PATTAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS CHANDRIKA NIVAS DOOR NO.2-17-1476/2 OPPOSITE TO BALIGA STORES “BAJOI”
MANGALORE – 575 009 (BYSRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 2. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJ, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01.10.2012 AT ANNEXURE – A PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 1.10.2012 against which this writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash the same and to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.
2. A complaint was made by one K M Asif Ahmed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner demanded Rs.15 lakhs from him to favour a case in O S No.394/2006 pending on the file of the court in which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer. The learned District Judge, D K, Mangalore recorded statement of the complainant and also obtained affidavit. The complaint itself has been taken on record and departmental enquiry was initiated. Before initiation of regular enquiry, a discrete enquiry was conducted and it was opined that there is a case made out for initiation of regular enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated and enquiry officer was appointed. On the basis of the complaint and discrete enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority framed articles of charges in D I No.1/2010 on 30.7.2010. Along with the charge sheet list of witnesses and list of documents were furnished to the petitioner. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also supplied. The petitioner made representation and sought to drop the enquiry proceedings against him.
3. The complainant has stated in his complaint dated 15.8.2009 that he had filed O S No.394/2006. It was pending for the last 3 years and in September, 2008 he got a call from one Mr.Shafi and informed to have a talk with Shafi and pursuant to the same he went to the place where Shafi was sitting in a Santro Car No.KA 19 Z 6477. He told him to sit in the car and asked about pendency of the case. He further told that the petitioner was the Judicial Officer, he was his close friend and he would do some favour provided he pays some amount. On the same evening, again he received a call. Thereafter, he went there and saw the petitioner who was sitting in the tinted Honda SUV Car with registration NO.KA 19 6477. Shafi introduced the complainant to the Judge and Judge told the complainant that if he wants to finish the case fast, he has to pay Rs.15 lakhs.
4. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW-1 and PW-2 to PW-6 are the practicing advocates of Mangalore of which PW-2 is its President and PW-7 was the Principal District Judge, who recorded the statement of the complainant and PW-8 the Vigilance Registrar and PW-9 is the Police Inspector attached to the High Court Vigilance Office. On behalf of the petitioner, himself was examined and he has not examined any independent witness and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D15 on his behalf.
5. The Enquiry Officer after examining the respective case of the parties held that Articles of Charges have been proved. The High Court Committee-I examined the case papers and recommended the case of the petitioner for maximum punishment. The same was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court concurred Next >