Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivaraj B Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE A"
DATED THIS THE 6"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2Ii1';0CA A
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I+:I;I«I,_NAGIAMOHA:,I<I'1}A§' E'
WRIT PETITION N0. 1759 %sE:/2:11:16 (GM?R..ES):
BETWEEN :
Sri SHIVARAJ B.P,-<3J'I._L'_'-- ,
S/O Sri BASAVANA C{O_LI_D,A'« I
AGED ABOUT :45 YTEARsV.. > _
REGIONAL _TRAN.VS¥'(Z+RT OE'FIC--ER. '_ H
RAICHUR:DIsT'RIc:T,RAICHIIR
R/O JAYANAGAR.C0'LQNY"~._ A A
SEDAM ROAD,'-GUL4BAR~GA;.__ PETITIONER
(By Sri.BAI.£.I.ACEAR:YA,..SRQC(jUNSEL)
A 1. 1T'I:IEsT%A'fEIOEH§KEARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
'_ TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
M_s.BUIL,DINO, Dr. B.R.AMBED1<AR
E' V»\/AEEDAH1, BANGALORE A 560 001.
;-~.._E
' .
SUM
_ the petitioner.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
COD, "BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.S.MA.LLIKARJUNA1AI-I, GP FOR STATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTI:'C~£,E$:.0.22:6 C AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION .0F»..II$?D._IA Mw*1;fIfE"Ai. PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUONED; ORDER PASSED-..B.)f 5 THE R1 DT.14.09.2006 AT ANNEXURE--A"AND ETC} --. THIS WRIT PETITION COMi'N(} ON FORTE HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE'-EOLLOW1"N_G; I f In this writ petition the pE§iti_U'n€I'.h2rS préyeti'--.t:cr'a writ in the nature of certiorati to"0qafIaShI the.:oI'de'r dated 14.09.2006 passed by respondent No. "i,_aS per0"A_nn*exure"_;A according Sanction to prosecute ._ 2;__Petitioner working as Regional Transport Officer (for Tshort R"FO)v-._'é1t~.?i?Eanga1ore with effect from 18.06.1998. After M if " I éissiirninrg charge as RTO the petitioner noticed certain irregularities committed' in the treasury section. Consequently the petitioner N?' /I it take appropriate action including audit of the accounts for the brought to the notice of the higher authorities and requested thern_.to 1992-93 to 1998-99. Accordingly audit was conducted and enquiry report specified that huge amounts" are rn'isappropriatedj.4 during the relevant period. On the basis iiauditrrepyort investigation was ordered by the CoDli toionlyi 1998-99. After receipt of Col?!' .reportq..t':"IeEr1'atter.was placed-' before 5 the Secretary to Governmental(Transportl, Transport Department. In the;..c«oricerneC|;_Aifiilei the Transport Department made ta», .
a. Commissioner as to why the invesitiiigat-ionVw-asA'reislriicted to and taken up for the year aloAne;vwhen the Audit Inquiry Report alleging of funds encompasses the whole period of 9' A i997-«98?
b. if are the Officers who are charged with the liiiiresponsibility of inspecting the RTOS Offices and who have done the inspections during the above currency of '____J!""
/V . Further whetrthe Audit"ln:q21iry._"for rveportrrelates to t 199] to 1998 and if so what are their reports along the actions taken thereon'?
Immediately on the receipt of the report~''fr"orij~.. '4 l Mangalore enclosing the Audit I:n_qui1_y not Transport Commissioner"--take aetioii Vagains.t vvthVose3 departmentally or initiate crirr_1_in'alV_pt'oceedings_ withiin his own powers delegatedto' is '4 _ period :19?! why fwas action proposed against offif;Vials}'0fficersudwho are there next year narnelvl chunk of Officers/Officials coveredlliunder the A=udit"Report and leaving out those who
- have. functioned""ci1iring the currency of the Audit Report? rationale behind this action?
Col) report now received shall have to be anallvsed in full depth by the Transport Commissioner _:with all its ramifications and shall make specific recommendations to the State Government wherever i"\ 7"
necessary/either for prosecution or for taking disciplinary:9~.y_ action or for both, after fully satisfying himse1fi_t.hat -1- 1 action is considered necessary. Andthis after exercising the delegated Tullynié-Aandéi :3 rd transferring the entire vresponsihility over Government. 1 1 1 1 1 1
3. Thereafter the Principal' A the Transport Minister approved the recomrne-ndatiicn rnade the: Secretary and the same reads as -iundcrr. "
.i"Pr*ilic.ij§a1 to1._11"Govt. Home & Transfmrt 'D613t1.11/11' 1 11' S Icouild not"ag1ree .-lessiéu/Jith the observations of the :T.--S._ scope'1of .1the..1CoD enquiry should have the entire""'period 1991-92 to 1998-99. ' .Restrfict_ing just to last year yields nothing ,concrete.'1_'The'1i;.."El should categorically pin down accountability/responsibility on the persons actually involve-.d11'in this sordid tale and seek permission for Atheiiri prosecution so far this exercise has not been 'properly attempted. Para 155 of TS note may please "be approved. N is
4. Despite the order of the Secretary, Principal Secre--tarylpl'ar3lC'rt the Transport Minister as stated above, no furth.e_r action' When the matter stood at that stage, the respoAndent" Cove-rnment now passed the impugned order at A.nne_x"ure A according san'c_ti'on1o prosecute the petitioner. Hence,;__ this wrilt----peAtition..._
5. Heard arguments on perused the entire writ papers.
6. A perusal of order -- Annexure A manifestly makes it clear that there is reference to the order passed by the V.S'earetaryf,"Principal Seclretaryrand the Transport Minister as stated above.:F'urther,ittis"~see'n from the impugned order that the report of 'i*--..___,the COD» and the entire material collected by it in the course of _lfljnvesptigation are not given due consideration. It is obligatory on the par't«.of"G0vernment to consider the entire report and the material H by the investigating agency and find out whether there is a égkvfvx 2 5;
prima facie case against the petitioner for according sanctiUn.l:"tQi"'--_ prosecute the'pet.it.ioner. In the impugned order responden_t"No. ha's--l A * not undertaken the exercise of considering». the r_eport"
material collected by the investigating agency. the impugned order is liable to be quasihed..V_
7. For the reasons statediabosve, , I. II. dated"';l4.09.2006 passed by Annexure A is hereby _ quias-had'; A' III}: E>'5_Iiff:i1e.V'rnatter' is--rernanded to respondent No. '1 for fresh _ " in accordance with law keeping in mind the obseryartions made above.
Sd/~ JUDGE V y _ it .i}1§'sy'os7V 122010.