Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Parties to the case :
Manjunath G B v. State of Karnataka
The advocates for the petitioner are Mr.Sharanagouda Patil and Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda Patil
The advocate for the respondent is government pleader
The special leave petition is filed by the Petitioner against the impugned judgement and final order dated 20.11.2017 passed by Karnataka High Court, Bangaluru Criminal Bench in Criminal Appeal No 193/2012. The HC has partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused and made some adverse remarks against the petitioner.
The petitioner is the investigating officer in the case arising from Crime No.252/2009 registered in Byppanhalli Police Station on 25.08.2009. The Court took an assumption that the petitioner has been diluting charges as mentioned in the FIR dated 25.08.2009 and 28.10.2009. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Supreme Court.
An application of Special Leave Petition is filed under Order XXII, Rule 2(1) and under Article 136 of Constitution of India in criminal appellate jurisdiction to grant special leave and interim relief on grounds that
The Hon’ble High Court is in error by passing adverse remark in Para 25 of the Judgement against the petitioner who is a public servant and has done his duty as per the law and being investigating officer of the case for a brief period has filed the charge sheet after obtaining all due clearances. The petitioner who is a public servant and has performed his duty by investigating into the case and has made out the offence under S. 498 (A), 120-B, 302 r/w S. 34 IPC and U/Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out and not an offence under S. 302 r/w 34 IPC and there has been no dilution of charges in the Charge sheet. The submission of the charge sheet is only done after fair investigation under appropriate provisions of law. Error on the part of the HC to approve clearance and alteration of charges made in the FIR. The Hon’ble HC is seriously in error in directing to take action u/s 196, 211, 218 of IPC and being subjected investigation as a part of a criminal case where he has been an investigating officer for a brief period and has conducted the investigation as per the law and also he had obtained clearance from the prosecutor and also from the higher authorities for alteration of charges. The Hon’ble HC has erred in directing criminal investigation and departmental enquiry which cannot co-exist together. The suspension of the investigating officer without a departmental enquiry and without giving him an opportunity to produce his side of evidence is not fair in law.
It is evident that the HC without initiating disciplinary proceedings and without complying several stages of departmental proceedings, without fulfilling the condition precedent for imposing penalty against any civil servant.
The HC erred in allowing suspension of the petitioner without taking into consideration that the enquiry officer had failed to take evidence from the petitioner. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and service jurisprudence. The HC failed in complying with the rules and procedure regarding removal, dismissal, reduce in rank and imposition of penalty stated in Article 311(2) of Indian Constitution. The High Court to failed to consider the fact that Petitioner has filed a detailed charge sheet as to the circumstances under which the charges were altered and there is no dilution of the charges, which has been overlooked by the Hon’ble High Court and despite there is no wrong doing has passed adverse remarks and directions against the Petitioner. The HC missed out on observing the fact that the Petitioner has filed the charge sheet on 2.1.2015 before the Hon’ble Court of JMFC which has taken the cognizance of the same. It is also clearly evident that it is being contrary with the judgements passed by it.
SUPREME COURT DIRECTION
Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. The directions issued by the HC shall remain stayed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824