SC stays disciplinary proceedings against assistant public prosecutors for corruption in recruitment

The Supreme Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a batch of Assistant Public Prosecutors in Karnataka for alleged corrupt practices adopted in the recruitment process in 2013 on the basis of a report prepared by Upalokayukta.

The proceedings in the matter were initiated following a private complaint filed by H T Ravi, an unsuccessful candidate in 2014 alleging Chandrashekar Hiremath, then director of the prosecution and another staff were involved in corruption in the recruitment of assistant public prosecutors.

On Friday, acting on a petition by Sarojini Veerappa Batakurki and others, a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and P S Narasimha stayed the departmental proceedings.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Basava Prabhu S Patil and advocate Chinmay Deshpande and Anirudh Sanganeria.

Advocates Shailesh Madiyal and Nishanth Patil, appearing for Upalokayukta, submitted that the High Court has directed for the completion of the proceedings within four months of its judgement.

The court, however, ordered that departmental inquiry should not proceed till the petitions are disposed of by it.

As many as 60 candidates recruited to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors faced the inquiry. A total of nine candidates approached the top court while the case of the remaining others was pending with the High Court.

The petitioners here challenged the Karnataka High Courts orders of May 14, 2020, and June 28, 2021, dismissing their plea.

They contended that the power under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act cannot be exercised against them as they were not a public servant at the time of the alleged act.

Their plea also said the High Court failed to appreciate that summons issued against them by a trial court on the basis of a supplementary charge sheet was stayed, though the case was registered on the basis of the Upalokayukta report of June 28, 2018.

It also submitted the disciplinary proceedings by Upalokayukta at the behest its own report would be farcical in nature and cause grave injustice to her.

The Upalokayukta ought not to have taken suo motu cognizance in the matter due to the absence of specific allegations or complaints against the selected candidates, it added.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: