Dismissed for accepting Rs 3,500 bribe from electricity thief

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The suspension of an assistant executive engineer of a Government power transmission company for accepting a bribe of Rs.3,500 has been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka.

Ironically, the bribe was taken from an electricity thief to reduce the fine imposed on the latter. A petition filed by Narayana Bhovi BH, an AEE in MESCOM, challenging his dismissal from service was heard by the division bench of Justice KS Mudagal and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar.

It was alleged that Narayana had demanded Rs.3,500 from one AJ Jose so as not to impose a fine of Rs.38,000 for the theft of electricity committed by the latter.

The Lokayukta police registered an FIR at the Mangaluru Lokayukta police station in 2013. A trap was laid and the Rs.3,500 recovered from Narayana.

A charge sheet was filed alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In 2016, the director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) initiated disciplinary proceedings under the KPTCL Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations. Narayana participated in the inquiry.

In 2017, the inquiry report held that the charges against Narayana were proved. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued against him for imposition of a major penalty. He then approached the High Court against the inquiry.

The HC in its judgement on Narayana’s petition said that he was late in approaching the court.

“It is settled principle of law that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the delay by the petitioner and his conduct plays a vital role. The petitioner slept over the matter for more than 4 years and only when the findings of inquiry came against him, he is questioning the same,” it said.

Citing two earlier judgements; State of Karnataka vs. Umesh and Director General of Police vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, the HC said, “In the judgments in Umesh and Rajendra Dubey’s cases it was held that the Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the inquiry report, if the same is handled by the competent authority by following the procedure prescribed, principles of natural justice and if the same does not suffer perversity. This case is clearly covered by those judgments.”

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition filed by Narayana, the HC dismissed it. (WP 21696/2018)