Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
The Government by its order dated 27-06-2013 directed the CID to conduct the investigation. The CID after investigation had submitted a preliminary/interim report on 10.09.2013 and submitted chargesheet before the Hon‟ble XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions (Special Court )which was registered as Special Case No.311 /2014. Whereas, based on the interim report, the Government issued Government Order dated 15.10.2013/14.08.2014 cancelling the results of the main competitive examination and also the Viva-Voce, directing the Karnataka Public Service Commission to revaluate the answer script of the main written examination and to conduct Viva-Voce strictly in accordance with the recommendations of HOTA Committee. Whereas, in the meantime some of the candidates had challenged the action of the Government order dated 15.10.2013 by filing applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Gradually, all the affected candidates preferred applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted an „interim order‟ directing the State Government not to notify for the „362 posts‟ which was a subject matter of the 2011 Selection List till the disposal of the applications. Whereas, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, CID had submitted its final report and in its „final report‟ had concluded that the officials, who are the then Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission shown as Accused Nos. 9 to 16 had entered into criminal conspiracy and had misused the official machinery to do favours for candidates seeking to be appointed as Group-A and B employees under the 2011 Notification. The said 8 Accused persons have obtained illegal gratifications from various candidates and had misused their office to grant appointments for such illegal gratification and thereby had committed the offences punishable under Sections120-B, 166, 167 of Indian Penal Code R/w Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 37 of Indian Penal Code . Whereas, it is pertinent to note here that, although the names of certain candidates find a place in the „charge sheet‟ for having maintained telephonic contact with some of the Accused, none of them have, themselves been named as Accused either in the charge sheet or in the FIR. Whereas, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunalin the meantime, had proceeded to hear the matter on merit. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal by its order dated 19.10.2016, allowed the Applications and quashed the Government Order dated 14.08.2014. The Tribunal thereafter directed the State of Karnataka to issue orders of appointment to the Applicants in terms of the provisions of Rule 11(3) of „1997‟ Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Whereas, a perusal of the said charge sheet would show that, none of the candidates who are either selected or had participated in the selection process have been named as Accused persons. The gist of the charge sheet filed by the C.I.D discloses that there is a commission of offence of criminal conspiracy by the Chairman, Members, staff and some middlemen to favour certain candidates who are otherwise ineligible or less meritorious by accepting illegal gratifications. The name of these candidates is not forthcoming in the report of the C.I.D. Whereas, these candidates alleged to have paid illegal gratification to the Members or the middlemen is also not forthcoming in the charge sheet. In view of the matter, this is an aspect to be established before the Court of law after a full fledged trial. In pursuance to this order dated 17.03.2017, the State Government has directed Heads of Departments to issue Appointment Order after completion of procedure of verification. Whereas, Director, Municipal Administration issued appointment order to 18 candidates. On 27.03.2017 and on 03.04.2017 the RDPR Department has issued appointment orders to 60 candidates. Whereas,apart from the aforesaid allegation, prima-facie the CID Report does not appear to point fingers at any of the other candidates who have participated in the Selection process and form part of the selection list. Therefore, the present issue throws up a very pertinent question as to what should be the fate of those candidates against whom there is no allegation and no elements of doubt or suspicion. A relevant question arises as to can these candidates who have apparently undergone certain struggle and put in efforts to participate and get through the selection process, be punished for their no fault (without establishing their involvement), by holding that the entire list is vitiated due to the conduct of a few persons, if at all, any aspersions can be cast against their conduct. Whereas, mere allegations of malpractice and commission of alleged offences, would not be sufficient to justify the end result of cancelling the appointments in respect of all the candidates. It is only after the due process of law is undertaken by way of an enquiry or investigation reaches its logical conclusion if it is so established and proved before Court of Law, then it be said that the time is right to penalize the delinquent or the offender. Whereas, the State has initiated (on finding some prima facie materials) and awaited these proceedings to reach their logical and final conclusion failing which, it would defeat the very ends of justice to penalize the candidates who find a place in selection list. No member of KPSC or no Candidates have been proved guilty of alleged offences or are convicted in any court of trial. In writ Petitions bearing Nos.13617-13627/2017 in case of Smt.Renukambike R and Others Vs the State of Karnataka challenging the order of KAT,the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru on 09.03.2018 allowed the writ petitions and upheld the G.O. dated 14.08.2014 and held as under; “52. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that, the Administrative Tribunal erred in substituting its opinion and therefore, the impugned judgment quashing State Government‟s decision to withdraw the is wholly unsustainable. Consequently, direction to the State Government to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates is also rendered unsustainable in law.” X X X