<p>After refusing to suspend 61 assistant public prosecutors (APP)s, allegedly appointed through dubious ways, the government has now recommended posting of the main accused in the very office of the director prosecution, where he was working earlier.</p>.<p>Based on the recommendation by JD(S) MLA Nisarga Narayanaswamy, the chief minister’s office has forwarded the proposal to re-post Narayanaswamy, an administrative officer at the office of the director of prosecution, charge-sheeted in the scam for tweaking the answer scripts.</p>.<p>According to sources, the file pertaining to the transfer of Narayanaswamy is pending before the additional chief secretary, department of personnel and administrative reforms (DPAR).</p>.<p>Narayanaswamy was under judicial custody after being arrested by the Lokayukta police during the investigation. As per a government circular, an official cannot be posted at the same office after the deemed suspension period. However, following a letter of recommendation by Devanahalli MLA Nisarga Narayanaswamy, Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy has put up a note stating “for appropriate action’’. Based on this note, the DPAR on August 11, 2018, directed the director of prosecution to send the proposal. </p>.<p>The Lokayukta police had filed the chargesheet against the then director of prosecution Chandrashekhar Hiremath, administrative officer Narayanaswamy and 61 APPs who got selected illegally. The charge sheet stated that both Hiremath and Narayanaswamy had replaced answer scripts after making entries post-examination. The FSL report also confirmed the handwriting of Narayanaswamy in the tweaked answer scripts.</p>.<p>It may be recalled that the DPAR had refused to suspend 61 beneficiaries of the scam who are working as APPs and assistant government pleaders. Prior to this, the director of prosecution, in an opinion to the Home Department, had stated that the suspension would affect cases being heard in various courts.</p>.<p>Former director of prosecution T S Gopinath has said that the opinion was not given during his period.</p>.<p>“I was director of prosecution for one month in June 2018. The note was prepared before I took charge as the director of prosecution,’’ he said.</p>
<p>After refusing to suspend 61 assistant public prosecutors (APP)s, allegedly appointed through dubious ways, the government has now recommended posting of the main accused in the very office of the director prosecution, where he was working earlier.</p>.<p>Based on the recommendation by JD(S) MLA Nisarga Narayanaswamy, the chief minister’s office has forwarded the proposal to re-post Narayanaswamy, an administrative officer at the office of the director of prosecution, charge-sheeted in the scam for tweaking the answer scripts.</p>.<p>According to sources, the file pertaining to the transfer of Narayanaswamy is pending before the additional chief secretary, department of personnel and administrative reforms (DPAR).</p>.<p>Narayanaswamy was under judicial custody after being arrested by the Lokayukta police during the investigation. As per a government circular, an official cannot be posted at the same office after the deemed suspension period. However, following a letter of recommendation by Devanahalli MLA Nisarga Narayanaswamy, Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy has put up a note stating “for appropriate action’’. Based on this note, the DPAR on August 11, 2018, directed the director of prosecution to send the proposal. </p>.<p>The Lokayukta police had filed the chargesheet against the then director of prosecution Chandrashekhar Hiremath, administrative officer Narayanaswamy and 61 APPs who got selected illegally. The charge sheet stated that both Hiremath and Narayanaswamy had replaced answer scripts after making entries post-examination. The FSL report also confirmed the handwriting of Narayanaswamy in the tweaked answer scripts.</p>.<p>It may be recalled that the DPAR had refused to suspend 61 beneficiaries of the scam who are working as APPs and assistant government pleaders. Prior to this, the director of prosecution, in an opinion to the Home Department, had stated that the suspension would affect cases being heard in various courts.</p>.<p>Former director of prosecution T S Gopinath has said that the opinion was not given during his period.</p>.<p>“I was director of prosecution for one month in June 2018. The note was prepared before I took charge as the director of prosecution,’’ he said.</p>