Govt servants should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion, says HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Public servants should be like Caesar’s wife; above suspicion, the High Court of Karnataka has said, refusing to quash an investigation against a Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) officer.

“The integrity of a public servant is required to be beyond suspicion as in the proverbial adage that “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion,” the HC said while dismissing a petition filed by Shreeroopa, who was working as Deputy Secretary III in BDA.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, AntiCorruption Bureau had submitted a proposal to the Government seeking approval to investigate the then Commissioner of BDA, T Shyam Bhat and Shreeroopa.

It was alleged that one P Bhaskar Reddy was allotted a 60x40 site in Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout. A sale deed was executed in 2005 in his name.

However, in 2012, 40x60 sites including his were converted to 30x40 sites and allotted to other persons. This caused serious prejudice to the original allottees who were not even provided alternate sites.

This was sought to be investigated. The State Government, considering the request concluded that there was a prima facie case and approved conducting of an investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Challenging this approval, Shreeroopa approached the HC. Justice NS Sanjay Gowda who heard the petition however did not find merit in it.

“If there exists even a shadow of doubt on the integrity of a public servant, it will not only harm his reputation but would also tarnish the entire system of which he is a part. Thus, in such a situation, if the aspersions cast on the integrity of a public servant and an Investigating Officer under the Act harbours a view that an investigation is necessary, it would be in the interests of both the Government and the public servant that such a nagging suspicion is obliterated,” the HC said in its judgement refusing to entertain the petition.

The HC rejected the contention that according permission to investigate will not automatically result in prosecution.

“It may so happen that after conducting an investigation, the Investigating Officer may very well come to the conclusion that there is no justification for initiating prosecution and may drop such proceedings against the public servant. Thus, the mere grant of approval to conduct an investigation would not lead to an inference that the investigation would necessarily culminate in a prosecution against the public servant,” the HC said.

Dismissing the petition, the HC said, “The State Government has, on consideration of the materials placed before it, prima facie found that there was adequate material which indicated that an attempt had been made by the petitioner and the then Commissioner to cause loss to the Government, and therefore, in order to ascertain the truth in the matter, it was necessary to accord approval to conduct investigation.” (WP 20132/2023)