High Court of Karnataka seeks state’s response to denial of permission to prosecute engineer

The petitioner, Nagegowda from Mandya district, moved the court urging it to quash an order dated March 1, 2022, passed by the state declining to grant permission to prosecute Srinivas.
High Court of Karnataka
High Court of Karnataka

BENGALURU:  Expressing shock over the denial of permission to prosecute an engineer, who released Rs 5 crore for work done in three days when all offices remained closed due to lockdown in 2020, the High Court of Karnataka has sought the state government’s response.

“A perusal of documents shocks the conscience of the court... It further shocks how the state/competent authority has declined to grant sanction citing that a similar case is pending before the Lokayukta, even though on the said date, the proceedings before the Lokayukta had been closed. K Srinivas, who has retired as Executive Engineer, Hemavathi Edadande Nala Division, KR Pet, Mandya, has not bartered away his money or the competent authority, has rejected the sanction, and has not lost his money. What is bartered away is public money,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.

Despite the lockdown, Srinivas issued a work order on March 27, 2020, to construct a retaining wall, and strengthen the waste weirs and the sluice canal of Hosaholalu Doddakere to a certain PK Shivaramu. The contractor completed the work in just three days and submitted a bill stating that it was a running accounts bill. The Rs 5.02-crore bill was immediately cleared after approval from Srinivas, the court said.

The petitioner, Nagegowda from Mandya district, moved the court urging it to quash an order dated March 1, 2022, passed by the state declining to grant permission to prosecute Srinivas.

When he was in service, Srinivas applied for an exemption under Section 4(G) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, contending that certain works had to be executed immediately and secured the exemption. This became a subject matter of a complaint before the Lokayukta, which closed it after examining the records stating that there was no violation of law in securing the 4(G) exemption.

The petitioner registered a private complaint under which an FIR was registered. The government’s sanction was sought to proceed further by the investigating officer. But the government declined to state that a similar complaint was pending before the Lokayukta.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com