The respondent was working as a Police Inspector at Mysore from 31st July, 1997 to 31st October, 1998.
The respondent denied the charges.
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 High Court recorded the following four discrepancies in the departmental proceedings In the companyplaint Smt.
The IO returned a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent have been proved.
She has requested therein to take action against Mr. Mahendra and his friends.
The said criminal trial resulted in the acquittal of the respondent.
You being a responsible Police Officer, shown utter misconduct in managing to obtain a Xerox companyy of the said petition through illegal means and companytacting 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.
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.
KA 05 9795 along with his friends and raped her.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Circle, Mangalore was appointed as the Inquiry Officer IO .
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 companyplaint dated 08/08/98 with Sri.
Even though the petition of Miss. Chandrika, lodged with the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City was number at all companycerned to you, you managed to get its companyy with ulterior motto through illegal means and companytacted Mrs. J. Nirmala wife of Mr. Sampathkumar, Driver of car No.
The respondent was served with a charge sheet.
On the companyplaint of one Nirmala, the Lokayukta Police had laid a trap.
15/1998 was registered against respondent in Mysore Lokayukta Police Station under 1 for short, Tribunal Section 7, 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Government which came to be dismissed on 8th September, 2006.
KA 05 9795 by sending Mr. Puttaraju CHC 141 and Mr. Shivakumar CPC 22 to Bangalore and also companytacted the above parties over telephone and demanded Rs.40,000/ as illegal gratification for number including the car in the case.
In addition to the criminal trial, the respondent was also proceeded against for the misconduct in departmental proceedings.
On the basis of a criminal companyplaint lodged, Crime No.
The respondent faced departmental proceedings on the following two charges You, the Accused Police Officer, Sri.
Aggrieved against the order of punishment, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Considering the companytentions of the respondent, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police passed an order of dismissal of the respondent from service on 30 th September, 2005.
The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as the period of suspension only.
When the parties were number agreed to pay, you negotiated the amount to Rs.20,000/ .
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.
The companyplaint was registered on 27.08.1998 whereas the evidence shows that panch witness had been informed to companye on 26.08.1998.
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.
Thereafter, a second show cause numberice was issued to the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 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 Tribunal1 on 12th March, 2009 setting aside the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed upon the respondent remained unsuccessful.
