Devaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Devaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2011

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE: 26m DAY 01:' MAY 2011
PRESENT
THE HQNBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR,  
AND     %_  .
THE HQNBLE: 
Writ Petition N0.43F_348/n  'V

Batween

Devaraj

s/0 late Ramaiah,
Aged about alﬁéytaars,   _  ' 
R/0 KEB Rozgfci,     *   

T.N.Pur3s ;-  %_  "  . "   *

Mysore Dis'(_ri<i_{tf_ _ ._ ._ 3.

 --------        .,.Petiti0ner

(By   Sreekanth Associates,
Ac1Vs.,) A ' "  V'  

    Karnataka,

 V.Vid:hgm3:':'3i>udha,
V " Ba:{;gaEQé€w56O 001,
 Rep by" its Chief Secretarja.

.4 H u   ' "  :  The" Secretary.

, _ "(Stats {sf Kzgirrzataka,
' ' {)€partm€nt of Urban Bevsigépment,
Ex/LS,Bu§Eding;
B.:é:11gfai0r€~§6C3 CREE.

 ?v'§}/'S{'}f€* Urbzm i}€vé3%<2p:3:€%:3i ;%::%:h<:}:'§i/§;r:
aiiﬁﬁ, Rs:";::1d§, M§Sé:>:*§=-,
Rciég}  £135; C<::m:"::§ssaia::2<%r.



:J"?:9te%ra;a@ee:§éi ﬁwjt

M-mw'*"'

4
of the original file reveals, that the Director General of
Police, COD (respondentt no.4) submitted :3. report dated

09.07.2008 t0 the Additienai Chief Secretary Secretary. Home Department; indicating the"ei};2r.e'i:,;§;i<}r:s drawn in the process of investigatien .{?'£iii'Fi'§:'~f1 V'C!U'f,Av by 'i':he"'«.. COD. A perusal of the rep0rt'»._da:'ted.:' 'i that 23 eases were registered: wherein, ehaiigesheete w.ere presented, and prosecution i§_i'ri_p:t0grees--.« 33 A perusal 09.07.2008 also reveals, that;v.TfPOIiee, COD required the of 14 complaints, the MUDA. Based on the "rnacie by the Director General of Police}. we are 'informed by the learned eourisei

-,..,,:jep:resei2tirig thehMU'VDA, i,e., respondent no.3 herein, that been filed and in 12 0f the aforesaid iii e0r:1_pia_ivi'rts'{--'A investigatieh has; been eompieted and v"'f}FQS€CU,.ﬁOi1 is new pending, whereas, in the remaining two ' eegrzpiaintsr the process 0f inveetiigatiert is etiii in pregress. '' = it is aiee bretrght tr: eui' rzetiee by the learheti atetinsei :*e;>reee:1t4i:':g§ :*eepei3de:'it 130.3% that {teg::'irt:,rr:e:it/23.3 21<:tie:f; hess Vt}?/fit} ii"ii§§éi§f:'{i €1§§éti:'"§8t zszii the E2 eimpiiijgeee irzvtiiaieii in the 4WAwAw/vV\""

U! alleged conspiracy of forgixig and fabrication of documents. In this behalf, it is also brought to our notice, that all the aforesaid 12 elnpioyees were, in the first inst,;1nt:e';._Vp}aced under SU.Sp€11Si0IL however, in their"int;:3.xj_e;;-§__"'_of administration, the suspension was sou'gi1tt.:t;0 V'§I}€"f€\'.Ok€d,"'*.. and they were transferred to diS.g:h2grge' their ef't:tie§;-..inigtherh"'A "

urban development autho:*tti'e_§, However, the said 'apprh'aeh,.ed_,h§this Court, whereupon. the ortienhjotf t0 Oihﬁr Urban development 4_gu1th0ri;i'ti"ees by this Court, resuitantﬁgatt Came back to the empl0vy.m.€nAt..e'1';:'t}:}e_ second step, the MUDA has "employees to discharge duties and respbeneibilitiese.at'.ginimportant positions, unrelated to A' eﬁencttkéittes ef"'a1I_Q_tn1ent. As such, it is Submitted, that all ' p;Cé::$V1'!:;-,1e"a.Ctei€§n'? departmental and crirninah that couid have bee'nA§nitietfte§i against the culprits, has been initiated, and is in pr€:>g}jress.

in view: at the fatitual positien stated '' = ﬁzereinabnafeg we are S::ZiiiSf§€§t that the pufpeee, fer whieht the insstzint :z::*tt/ §e3tét§{3I'; ezzrne in he ﬂied, at the hzznziie 6;? the peti§'t.§<>:":e:: 215+; 32 ezznee in pt:t>'£i<* §t1§,€i"€E5§f,, 5%-3§E2§"}§;% fatty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court