STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. N. GANGARAJ
LAWS(SC)-2020-2-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 14,2020

STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
VERSUS
N. Gangaraj Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA V. H.C. GOEL [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VS. SHAHSI KANT S PATIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. S SREE RAMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
B C CHATURVEDI UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. G GANAYUTHAM [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NEMI CHAND NALWAYA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P GUNASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. VS. KRISHNA NARAYAN TEWARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAMLESHBHAI MAVABHAI SUTARIA VS. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-331] [REFERRED TO]
JOHILA AREA SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMKITED VS. CHANDRAMANI TIWARI [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, S.E.C.L. VS. CHANDRAMANI TIWARI [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAJEET VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR MEHER VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
DEV ANAND DEVA VS. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
VINODRAI DEVJIBHAI GOHIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KUMAR VS. M/S HIMACHAL EXICOM COMMUNICATIONS LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR NAGPAL VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-205] [REFERRED TO]
SANGHMITRA R. SANDANSING VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
KOMMIK KADU VS. STATE OF A. P. [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT CH. MOMIN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2021-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. K.S. VISHWANATH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-1-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.)The State is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 25th August, 2011 whereby the challenge to an order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, for short, 'Tribunal' on 12th March, 2009 setting aside the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed upon the respondent remained unsuccessful.
(2.)The respondent was working as a Police Inspector at Mysore from 31st July, 1997 to 31st October, 1998. On the complaint of one Nirmala, the Lokayukta Police had laid a trap. On the basis of a criminal complaint lodged, Crime No. 15/1998 was registered against respondent in Mysore Lokayukta Police Station under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. A charge sheet against the respondent was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Mysore for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said criminal trial resulted in the acquittal of the respondent.
(3.)In addition to the criminal trial, the respondent was also proceeded against for the misconduct in departmental proceedings. The respondent was served with a charge sheet. The respondent faced departmental proceedings on the following two charges:
"1. You, the Accused Police Officer, Sri. N. Gangaraj, while working as Police Inspector in City Crime Record Bureau of the office of the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City from 31/07/97 to 31/10/98, one Miss. Chandrika resident of Nandanavana, Ulsoor, Bangalore City, has lodged a complaint dated 08/08/98 with Sri. Kempaiah, Commissioner of Police, Mysore City, against one Mr. Mahendra of Indiranagar, Bangalore, stating that he promised to marry her and taken her in car No. KA-05-9795 along with his friends and raped her. She has requested therein to take action against Mr. Mahendra and his friends. The Commissioner of Police, Mysore City has sent the said petition to Police Inspector, City Crime Branch, Mysore for enquiry and to send the report. You being a responsible Police Officer, shown utter misconduct in managing to obtain a Xerox copy of the said petition through illegal means and contacting the wife of the Driver of above said vehicle demanded illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- and negotiating the deal for Rs.20,000/- with instructions to the party to pay the amount on 27/08/98 at your residence.

2. Even though the petition of Miss. Chandrika, lodged with the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City was not at all concerned to you, you managed to get it's copy with ulterior motto through illegal means and contacted Mrs. B.J. Nirmala wife of Mr. Sampathkumar, Driver of car No. KA-05-9795 by sending Mr. Puttaraju CHC 141 and Mr. Shivakumar CPC 22 to Bangalore and also contacted the above parties over telephone and demanded Rs.40,000/- as illegal gratification for not including the car in the case. When the parties were not agreed to pay, you negotiated the amount to Rs.20,000/-. Being a responsible Police Officer and knowing fully well that accepting illegal gratification is against to Rule 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, you behaved in a way to bring down the prestige of the department, showing dereliction of duty, utter misconduct and an at of unbecoming of a Police Officer as well as a Government Servant."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.