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,- _ 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.