Karnataka High Court
The Honble Karnataka Upa - Lokayuktha vs Sri H Srinivasa on 21 March, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
WP No.24285/2012 c/w WP No.5808/2013 (S - KAT)
WP No.24285/2012:
BETWEEN :
THE HONBLE KARNATAKA
UPA - LOKAYUKTHA
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001. PETITIONER
( By Sri. G D ULLAL, ADV.)
AND :
1 SRI H SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DRUGS
CONTROLLER, DAVANAGERE
CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE.
2
2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HELATH & FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001. RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. RAVIVARMA KUMARV, Sr.Cl. A/W
Sri R SARATHY, ADV. FOR C/R1
Smt.S SUSHEELA, AGA, FOR R2)
This W.P. is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
30.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
in Application No.6039/2010 vide Annexure-A.
WP No.5808/2013:
BETWEEN :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001. PETITIONER
( By Smt.S SUSHEELA, AGA)
AND :
1 SRI H. SREENIVASA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DRUGS
CONTROLLER, DAVANAGERE CIRCLE,
DAVANAGERE.
3
2 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA
UPA-LOKAYUKTHA,
REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001. RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. V RAVIVARMAKUMAR, Sr.Cl. A/W
Sri V R SARATHY, ADV. FOR C/R1 )
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
30.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
in Application No.6039/2010 vide Annexure-A.
These WPs coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, N KUMAR J, passed the following:
ORDER
These two writ petitions are preferred by the Lokayukta and the State challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal quashing the articles of charges and the report on the basis of which, the articles of charges were framed and the sanction given by the Government to prosecute the applicant.
2. The applicant/petitioner joined the service in the department of Health and Family Welfare on 4 15.10.1991 as Drugs Inspector under the Scheduled Caste category. He was promoted as Assistant Drugs Controller w.e.f. 19.9.1996. While working as Assistant Drugs Controller in Bangalore Circle-I, he unearthed spurious drugs racket run by the bogus Pharmaceautical Companies. The department appointed the applicant/petitioner as head of the investigation team to conduct enquiry into the spurious drugs racket and he submitted a report. In the said report, he has named 132 companies, which were involved in swindling of high price for the drugs amongst which one company by name Knoll Pharmaceutical Company was involved. Subsequently, criminal cases have been initiated against all the companies including Knoll Pharmaceutical Company for violation of Drugs Price Control Order. The initiation of the said criminal cases was challenged by one Zaveri, General Manager, Pharmaceuticals Sales, Knoll Pharmaceutical Ltd. before this Court in WP No.16617/2002. The said writ petition came to be 5 dismissed on 23.3.2006. The writ appeal is now pending before this Court.
3. As per the amended Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2002, the cadre of Deputy Drugs Controller has to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Drugs Controller, who had put in five years of regular service. Though initially DPC was not constituted for filling up the said post, but the committee was constituted and it conducted proceedings on 19.8.2009 and the name of the applicant was recommended for promotion.
4. Sri Zaveri, General Manager of Knoll Pharmaceutical Ltd. lodged a complaint against the petitioner/applicant in the year 2000. The Upalokayuka in turn appointed one Anand Rajashekar as Enquiry Officer, who was working as Drugs Contoller. He submitted a report to the Upalokayukta on 4.5.2002 holding that there is prima facie evidence with regard to the allegations made in 6 the complaint. The said report was sent to the applicant for his comments. In reply thereto, the applicant brought to the notice of the Upalokayukta that the Enquiry Officer and himself were not in good terms as they were at loggerhead and both of them have filed a complaint against each other much earlier to the investigation by the Drugs Controller and he has recorded the evidence without hearing him. For nearly 9 long years, nothing transpired. It is only thereafter the government addressed a letter on 27.5.2009 to the Lokayukta to know the status of the complaint against the applicant. The Upalokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokyukta Act recording a finding that there are sufficient materials to hold that the allegation of misconduct lodged against him is proved. On the said report, sanction was accorded for prosecuting the applicant and his promotion was withheld. Under these circumstances, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the report, chargesheet as well as 7 sanction.
5. From the material on record, it is clear that letter dated 5.7.2001 vide Annexure-A14, which is written by Anand Rajeshekar, Drugs Controller, who had made a complaint against the applicant. Annexure-A15 dated 26.6.2009 states that the complaint is still under investigation. These two documents indicate that the said Anand Rajeshekar had given a complaint of serious nature against the applicant/petitioner herein. Anand Rajeshekar was appointed as Investigating Officer by the Karnataka Upalokayukta, on 17.8.2001. The complaint of Anand Rajeshekar against the complaint is dated 5.7.2001, who was appointed as Investigating Officer to enquire into the complaint against the applicant. Therefore, it is obvious that a person, who was appointed as Investigating Officer against the applicant, had prejudice against the petitioner. Inspite of the said fact being brought to the notice of the 8 Upalokyukta, no action has been taken to withdraw his appointment and appoint a neutral person. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the report submitted by the Investigating Officer is vitiated and the report has been quashed. Under these circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. No merit.
The writ petitions stand dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bkm.