HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. C. RAGHUNATHAN
LAWS(KAR)-2022-1-68
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on January 20,2022

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
C. Raghunathan Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K.L. SHINDE V. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KANTA MUKHERJEE V. NEWSMAN'S PRINTING WORKS [REFERRED TO]
K.P. TIWARI V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM V. RAGHAVA RAJGOPALACHARI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. DINANATH SHANTHARAM KAREKAR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. KUSHAL BHAN [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR U R BHATT VS. UNON IOF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. SHIVABASAPPA SHIVAPPA MAKAPUR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H C GOEL [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
ZORA SINGH VS. J M TANDON [REFERRED TO]
P S SADASIVASWAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW VS. NAND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
L D JAIKWAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K R MUDGAL VS. R P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NEW DELHI VS. BHOPAL SINGH PANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. APURBA KUMAR SAHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. S SUBRAMANIAM [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B K MEENA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY ADVOCATE IN RE: [REFERRED TO]
M PAUL ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
R S SAINI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARI LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LALIT POPLI VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADHUSUDAN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR NAG VS. GENERAL MANAGER P J INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P VS. MOHD NASRULLAH KHAN [REFERRED TO]
G M TANK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS DAS VS. USHA RANI BANIK [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF DIRECTORS H P T C VS. K C RAHI [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VS. P KATA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICER ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION VS. MUMBAI PORT TRUST [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NEMI CHAND NALWAYA [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CUM M D COAL INDIA LTD VS. ANANTA SAHA [REFERRED TO]
SBI VS. HEMANT KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
CICILY KALLARACKAL VS. VEHICAL FACTORY [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VS. S. SAMUTHIRAM [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA J. JHALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN VS. DATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE [REFERRED TO]
DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE VS. KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P GUNASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. C NAGARAJU [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RAVI V.HOSMANI,J. - (1.)Challenging the judgment dtd. 3/10/2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.29276/2014, this appeal is filed by respondents in the writ petition.
(2.)The appellants herein were respondents in writ petition, while respondent herein was the petitioner. They will hereinafter be referred to as per their respective ranks in this appeal.
(3.)Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for appellants submitted that respondent - C. Raghunathan joined services of appellant no. 1 as Assistant Engineer (Aero), Grade - I in Design Complex, on 29/1/1991. On, 21/6/2006, he was issued with Articles of charge (Annexure - N) imputing that with a view to derive pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means abusing his position as a public servant, respondent had demanded through Sri. M.P. Shivshankar (his accomplice) from Sri. Vemula Madhukar, a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as illegal gratification for arranging appointment of Sri. Vemula Madhukar as Executive Trainee (Technical) and in pursuance thereof had demanded and accepted Rs.40,000.00 as advance payment of illegal gratification and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage for himself.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.