Dasegowda vs Karnataka Lokayuktha M S Building on 15 April, 2008

-1- .
I13 rm Ema coum: or Knmmxzum are  "~ V.

mum mxs mm 15" may or 191215,"-«'2bo&-  

322-om  
rm HOWBLE ma   
mas:-J: 9n*r::rzo1§'2¢o.:gs#E£7;4*2aq7 
Bmrwmm: V  A  

basegowda. 5/1': = _ V. &
52 years, .vm:k:i.ng§;as:   7
shex:1.stedaxi ;;i:;'_  " 
North  Otff;.t;m   '
Of the     '_  
Yee1a_E1~aaa.$1l:%i'*VMSa.t&:g,1.1.i*':.;o =._!.'<:rarh ,. .  

3ant_~;aJ.ox'-e;.L»V_.v "  . . pm-xzrxomn

:33,-   '  ;':4_:."s.. Rajendraprasad :. Just: . ;
_ 3-§.§;&B1_:i.3.._d.§.ng',
 
"V11/by'-ijtzsii Registrar.

 Registrar,
Enqgziry--V, attached to the

 ";3.R.A%ax Veaxfii,
' "Bangalore-1. . . azsromm-.rs

(By Adxracata Sxi.6-cvwtham Dev C.'U11a.'.I.)



-3-

This in-it Petition is filad unaar.. 1£xt.s:;'fi26  
227 of The Constitution of India tea   set'  

aside the order of n-2 «tea;.:a.3,9.2ee'r'"p§.ssad :m_
Departmental. Enquiry on _t1he file oi -.__Rv-.1' 

eansequently drap the 

accordance with law as pa; Annt1a::1:':z:_e---A.  v

This petition is cm' on  mu.' '5 V

day, the Court made the £olIa_wi--n_g:

:=etit.i.cg:;::%_L:Vj;§.s  Bsneriatadaz in
Ba.ngalo::e=i'      Office of the
Tahsildax: ,-.    -..vE'§a#?.9é'11--i}t:e Town , Bangalore.
In '_'1v?m:3::Lng as Manager, Food
Dapaxt1neiit:_  _iVzVi  'office of the Deputy'

caum§.$a1cnex"; ~  on the ground that petitioner

   received a sum of RS.'009/-* from one

";1_a;sTi;;vauaypa_,1     illegal gratification for

 kerosene 11¢:-mae, a trap was laid by

 6-$:'£.:i.¢':e:::'a at' the Kaxnatalca I-oftayukta on the

;Q,,/

  of one Haxayanappa. Allaging that he

 cgéntnitted an offence under Sam'! punishable under

Sat-..13(1)(c1) and (2) of tha Prevention sat'

Corruption Act. Charge-sheet was filed after

<\/



  the_;-*7c:3:§ e _;Eo.r A' 'dogma. The appncation filed by
  has been rejected by the 1mm.

'Ru;-.V«'ég:'.,.st:V':i.+a.é:"_~,--._ "B;nqI1iry--V', by his order dated.

. 4' ' *  ia1x§.§ péiition .

  A Counsel for the petitioner contends that» 

Wéixan petitioner: has been acquitted by thakcourt

~3-
investigation before the Special   '
Rural Diatxiot in ct: No.34/99....   '
did not plead guilty, av1a@ge;'_'w~.-4: 
after xmoxding ev1donr:i_a'_V..l:e  V   
giving' benefit of doubt.    appeal
was filed by VA Appeal
No.1461/2001 which  on
26.6.2006

. of the appeal
before had initiated
disposal of the
;:_._’3e.titionex xaqueatocl the

Ito proceedings and xeoomnand

28 This order is called in question in

“,.>€/”‘A’7’\U’nb {S/’
which has been affirnxm by this court in

{V

-5-

honouxably. Re ha: been acqui ttad M

benefit of doubt and tnexe::caz-aw.-Lt’

point No.1 has to be held ag-.u.’n.st :”£:he::’_ $p&£:1:if:i;.;§ha§.’ ”

1: the petitianer has been a’:éé,:_jgr_ ;é,~.¥:.§r.£;ngV
benefit of dorubt, even though «bgfofe
the criminal case and in are 63%
\/\.-VP
one and the sarae,__ whep… “been
honcaurably ‘re&9o?;&£n1.5s. not dxcp
the discipiinarfifi »:;§§’j; “proceed with

the enquiry

5. In the czoaart does not
see any rjaea.-z9na i:9V”:i;1ntérfere with the cazdaara.

is dismi 5.-.-ted.

Sd/-1
Iudgé

k/isosoa