<p>The State government’s claim that the relationship between the deceased IAS officer, D K Ravi, and his batchmate Rohini Sindhuri Dasari was “more than cordial” came under severe criticism from the counsel for the husband of the woman officer in the High Court on Tuesday. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Sajan Poovaiah, the counsel, said the way the government had disclosed personal information about Ravi and Dasari showed it looked upon a relationship from a particular prism. Dasari’s husband, Sudhir Reddy, has filed a writ petition and earlier obtained an interim order restraining the government from placing the CID probe report in the legislature. Dasari, a 2009-batch IAS officer, is the CEO of Mandya Zilla Panchayat. Ravi belonged to the same batch. <br /><br />During the hearing of the petition, Poovaiah described the statements made by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and officials of the Home Department on the relationship between Ravi and Dasari as “nothing but a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution”. <br />“How can they speak like this and reveal any information when the matter is under investigation,” he demanded. On the government’s contention that phone calls made by the deceased officer to Dasari before his death showed his (Ravi’s) mindset as well as his relationship with the latter, the counsel noted: “Is this the sensitivity the government has towards the officer, that too at the threshold of the High Court? She (Dasari) is married and a mother.” <br />Mentioning the chief minister’s statement that he was forced to refrain from speaking truth fearing that a law and order problem would arise given the hue and cry raised by the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, Poovaiah demanded: “Is this the truth the chief minister is speaking?” <br />Pointing out that Dasari had volunteered to record her statement after Ravi’s death, the counsel said that if the State had no maturity to conceal the information, she would not have come forward to share the information. <br />Citing several judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, Poovaiah said that revealing information while the investigation was under way hampered it. <br />“Revealing information during the half-done investigation is dangerous to investigation itself. It also amounts to interference with administration of justice, and the official indulging in such acts is liable for punishment,” he said. The counsel sought the court’s directions to restrain the government from further damaging the woman officer. <br />Additional Advocate General A S Ponnanna submitted that since the matter had been entrusted to the CBI for further investigation, the government could not make any statements. Justice S Abdul Nazeer, who heard the matter, reserved his order. <br />DH News Service</p>
<p>The State government’s claim that the relationship between the deceased IAS officer, D K Ravi, and his batchmate Rohini Sindhuri Dasari was “more than cordial” came under severe criticism from the counsel for the husband of the woman officer in the High Court on Tuesday. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Sajan Poovaiah, the counsel, said the way the government had disclosed personal information about Ravi and Dasari showed it looked upon a relationship from a particular prism. Dasari’s husband, Sudhir Reddy, has filed a writ petition and earlier obtained an interim order restraining the government from placing the CID probe report in the legislature. Dasari, a 2009-batch IAS officer, is the CEO of Mandya Zilla Panchayat. Ravi belonged to the same batch. <br /><br />During the hearing of the petition, Poovaiah described the statements made by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and officials of the Home Department on the relationship between Ravi and Dasari as “nothing but a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution”. <br />“How can they speak like this and reveal any information when the matter is under investigation,” he demanded. On the government’s contention that phone calls made by the deceased officer to Dasari before his death showed his (Ravi’s) mindset as well as his relationship with the latter, the counsel noted: “Is this the sensitivity the government has towards the officer, that too at the threshold of the High Court? She (Dasari) is married and a mother.” <br />Mentioning the chief minister’s statement that he was forced to refrain from speaking truth fearing that a law and order problem would arise given the hue and cry raised by the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, Poovaiah demanded: “Is this the truth the chief minister is speaking?” <br />Pointing out that Dasari had volunteered to record her statement after Ravi’s death, the counsel said that if the State had no maturity to conceal the information, she would not have come forward to share the information. <br />Citing several judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, Poovaiah said that revealing information while the investigation was under way hampered it. <br />“Revealing information during the half-done investigation is dangerous to investigation itself. It also amounts to interference with administration of justice, and the official indulging in such acts is liable for punishment,” he said. The counsel sought the court’s directions to restrain the government from further damaging the woman officer. <br />Additional Advocate General A S Ponnanna submitted that since the matter had been entrusted to the CBI for further investigation, the government could not make any statements. Justice S Abdul Nazeer, who heard the matter, reserved his order. <br />DH News Service</p>
