ORDER
Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of the order of suspension which is produced as Annexure-A in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Revenue Officer in the Bangalore City Corporation, Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore. The officers of the Lokayukta having found that the petitioner is possessing the properties disproportionate to his income, registered a case against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similarly the Lokayukta registered one more case against another employee Sri C. Andani having found that he was also possessing the properties disproportionate to his income. Pursuant to these proceedings the Corporation kept both the petitioner and Sri C. Andani under suspension under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 until further orders awaiting the report from the Lokayukta. Thereafter, after some time the Corporation wrote a letter to the Lokayukta on 8-1-2001 as per Annexure-C regarding revocation of suspension in respect of both the officers. Pursuant to this the Additional Director General of Police attached to the office of the Karnataka Lokayukta had written a letter to the Commissioner to release the ARO i.e., one Sri C. Andani from suspension with an observation that he may be posted to a post other than the one he was working at the time of raid. So far as the petitioner is concerned no communication has been sent from the office of the Lokayukta to the Corporation.
3. In order to know whether the Additional Director General of Police has on his own directed the Corporation to revoke the suspension, I called upon the Government Advocate to produce the records. From the
records I find that the Upalokayukta has directed to revoke the suspension of one Sri C. Andani and he has not passed any order regarding revocation of suspension insofar as the petitioner is concerned. From the files produced I find that the properties found in the house of Sri C. Andani at the time of raid are much more than those found in the house of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has examined about 34 witnesses on his behalf during the investigation. When such being the case, it is not known why the office of the Lokayukta passed an order regarding revocation of suspension only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
4. From the raid and investigation it is seen that both the petitioner and Sri C. Andani were possessing properties disproportionate to their income. On the basis of the investigation the Lokayukta has registered cases against both the persons under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to these proceedings it was for the Corporation to consider whether the said employees are to be kept under suspension pending decision of the departmental enquiry or the criminal proceedings. The Lokayukta either under the service rules of the Corporation or under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has got no power either to direct the Corporation to keep the official under suspension or to revoke the suspension. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the Commissioner to write to the Lokayukta seeking his permission either to keep the officer under suspension or to revoke the suspension.
5. On the last date of hearing after hearing both the parties with reference to the provisions of the Lokayukta Act, I observed that neither the Corporation could write to the Lokayukta to keep the officer under suspension nor could ask the Lokayukta to revoke the suspension already made. In spite of this observation the Commissioner of the Corporation has written one more letter to the office of the Lokayukta seeking for clarification regarding revocation of suspension of the petitioner. This obviously appears to be to shift the responsibility to protect himself from public criticisms. When the service rules of the Corporation and the Lokayukta Act do not provide for asking such permission of the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta either to keep the employee under suspension or to revoke the suspension, there is no need for the Commissioner to write such letters to the office of the Lokayukta. The very fact that the Commissioner had written a letter and continued to write letters thereafter, appears to be for the reasons as stated earlier.
6. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on several grounds. In the raid by the officers of the Lokayukta, it is found that the assets of the petitioner are disproportionate to his known sources of income. If that is so, there is no reason to revoke the order of suspension. But, at the same time, there is no reason for the Corporation to revoke the order of suspension in respect of Sri C. Andani only because the office of the Lokayukta has instructed him to revoke the suspension even though the Upalokayukta has no such power under the Act. Therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the Commissioner of the Corporation to withdraw the order of revocation of suspension of Sri C. Andani till the criminal case registered against him is decided. If during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if such officer is allowed to be continued in service by revoking the order of suspension it virtually amounts sending a wrong message to officials who really indulge in corruption. I am conscious of the fact that mere registration of the case cannot be said to be a proof of allegation. But, at the same time when there is an allegation of disproportionate wealth and there is some prima facie material for registering criminal case it is just and necessary to keep the official out of office till the matter is decided.
7. Hence, the following order:
(i) Writ petition is rejected.
(ii) The Commissioner of the Corporation is directed to take steps to withdraw revocation of suspension insofar as Sri C. Andani is concerned after due notice to him forthwith.