S. Gullaiah vs The Registrar, State by Lokayuktha Police

N. Kumar, J.—The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, where a recommendation is made to the Government to impose punishment of withholding of 30% of pensionary benefit permanently by not reducing the pension below the limits prescribed under Rule 214 (1)(a) of the KCSR.

The petitioner was working as Recovery Officer in Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd., D.K., Mangaluru. One Sri Vamana Naik filed complaint stating that under ''Ganga Kalyana Scheme'', he was sanctioned Rs. 86,000/- as subsidy by the Government of Karnataka for drilling the borewell in his land and also for installation of submersible pump. The said cost includes supply of electricity from the concerned Department. Accordingly, the borewell was dug and he obtained sanction of electricity from the electrical department. Since the cost were to be paid through Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation, the complainant approached the Delinquent Government Official (''DGO'' for short) i.e. the petitioner herein. When he approached the DGO for payment of the said amount, he put forth a demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. When he pleaded his inability, the DGO told him that he would not recommend for the pump set nor the complainant would get the power supply. On negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 4,000/- Complainant was not willing to pay the said bribe amount. Hence, he approached the Lokayukta Police, Mangaluru and lodged his complaint on 04.11.2009. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No. 11/2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was submitted to the Court. IO held the pre-trap formalities in the presence of panchas, then held the trap on 04.11.2009 which was successful. DGO was found demanding and accepting the bribe. After attending to post-trap formalities, recorded the statement of the witnesses. DGO also gave his statement. Thereafter, complaint was registered against the DGO and the enquiry was conducted. In the said enquiry, four persons were examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority and seven documents were marked vide Ex. P1 to P7. The DGO was examined as D.W. 1 and seven documents were marked as Ex. D1 to D7. The Enquiry Authority, on careful consideration of the entire oral evidence on record has recorded a categorical finding that the case of the complainant that Rs. 4,000/- was demanded as bribe and the said amount as paid is clearly established. It is unfortunate that the person who lodged the complaint turned hostile in the enquiry proceedings. However, the shadow witness i.e. P.W. 2 has given a graphic presentation with description of the incident and also another witness P.W. 3 has also supported the case of the disciplinary authority.

The Enquiry Officer has clearly considered the case put-forth by the DGO and has pointed out how there is total inconsistency in his defence. Therefore, on consideration of the entire material, he found the DGO guilty of the charges leveled against him and made the impugned recommendation to the Government.

The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends, when the complainant turns hostile and he does not support his complaint, the enquiry officer committed an error in not taking note of the answers given in the cross-examination and in finding the DGO guilty. According to him, the document on which the DGO relied clearly establishes his innocence and disputed the case of the complainant.

We have gone through the order passed by the Enquiry Officer. The version of the complainant that he turned hostile is acknowledged and it is thereafter, the enquiry officer, painstakingly noticed the evidence of other witnesses and the documents produced and recorded a finding that the DGO is guilty of the offences. It is to the credit of the enquiry officer being untrammeled by the conduct of the complainant, he has looked into the other material on record which is in the nature of legal defence and has recorded a finding of fact.

In the proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not expected to appreciate the evidence on record and then find out whether this finding is erroneous or whether there could be yet another view of the matter. All that this Court is expected to consider in these proceedings is, whether the principles of natural justice have been violated, whether the delinquent officer had opportunity to defend himself and whether the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on legal evidence. Judicial review is only to that extent.

In that view of the matter, we are satisfied from the material on record, the principles of natural justice had been complied with, the DGO had full opportunity to put-forth his case, cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry officer, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence on record keeping in mind the law governing the issue, has recorded a finding of fact by giving cogent reasons. After the enquiry officer submitted the report, the Hon''ble Upalokayukta once again has looked into the material on record and has affirmed the said finding. Therefore, all that is required to be done in law has been meticulously done. No reason for judicial review is made out.

In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Enquiry Officer. No merits.

Dismissed.