TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investigation, the statement of the wife of the petitioner was recorded, and she was arraigned as accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 177, 468, 465 & 471 of IPC. 2. The Lokayukta Police, on 25.06.2015, laid the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and against the accused No. 2, wife of the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 177, 468, 465 & 471 of IPC. The Sessions Judge by order, dated 16.7.2015, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 3. Accused No. 2 filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The said application came to be dismissed, against which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. 5. Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel would make the following submissions: i) The petitioner-accused was working as Chief engineer during the check period, which comes under the grade of Group-A Senior Scale as specified under the provisions contained in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1977. ii) Item 23 of Schedule I of Rules, 1977 makes it clear that all proposals relating to dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of Group-A officers of the State shall be placed before the Cabinet. iii) Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, makes it clear that, sanction is to be given by the authority which is competent to dismiss the person from the service. Hence, it is only the cabine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness) Rules, 1977 and Rules 21 and 40 are applicable only for removal dismissal or compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court: a) Dr. H.C. Sathyan -vs- The State of Karnataka, by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru, ILR 017 KAR 3531; b) Sri Theerthira N. Appachu @Titira N. Appachu -vs- State of Karnataka, rep. by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, ILR 2018 KAR 4459, page 4. 7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner was working as a Chief Engineer which is a Group A Senior Scale post and he is the head of the Department as sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....977 specifies that, the decision of the Cabinet relating to each case, shall be separately recorded and shall be placed with the record of the case. An extract of the decision shall be sent to the Secretary of the Department concerned for necessary action. 16. Rule 37 of the Transaction Rules, 1977 specifies that all cases of the nature specified in the Third Schedule to these rules shall, before the issue of orders thereon, be submitted to the Governor. 17. Item No. 9(b) of the Third Schedule of the Transaction Rules, 1977, deals with the proposals for rejection in rank, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service of the following officer and one of the officer enumerated in the said item includes Heads of the Departments. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions contained in the Transaction Rules, 1977 at para 16 has held as follows: "16. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court with regard to Competent Authority according sanction and the ground for want of sanction by the Competent Authority as urged by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Therefore, the subject point that arose for consideration is held in favour of the Petitioner". 22. The decision rendered in the case of Dr. H.C. Sathyan, supra, is not applicable to the facts of the case, since, the Court was dealing with the sanction granted to prosecute the Officer i.e., Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was not the head of the department and also, the decision was rendered without reference to the Rules, 21,23 & 40 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llows: "28. The next question then is whether we should, while allowing this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and permit the launch of a fresh prosecution against the appellant, at this distant point of time. The incident in question occurred on 24th March, 1998. The appellant was, at that point of time, around 38 years old. The appellant is today a senior citizen. Putting the clock back at this stage when the prosecution witnesses themselves may not be available, will in our opinion, serve no purpose. That apart, the trial Court had, even upon appreciation of the evidence, although it was not required to do so, given its finding on the validity of the sanction, and had held that the prosecution case was doubtful, reje....