By IANS,
Bangalore : Karnataka Governor H.R. Bhardwaj Tuesday accepted the resignation of Lokayukta Shivaraj V. Patil, who quit late Monday after a row over his buying a housing plot, and the government began the process for selecting a new ombudsman.
“The governor accepted the resignation of Shivaraj V. Patil as Lokayukta of Karnataka with effect from Sep 20, 2011,” said a communique from Raj Bhavan.
The state’s first ombudsman to leave office amid a row, Patil tendered his resignation to Bhardwaj Monday evening after explaining to him that no rules had been violated and no impropriety committed in purchasing the second plot in his wife Annapurna’s name, Raj Bhavan sources said.
Karnataka Chief Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda told reporters: “We have started the process of selecting a new Lokayukta as the governor accepted Patil’s resignation. We will take a decision soon.”
Gowda, however, declined to comment on Patil’s resignation or on the controversy under which the ombudsman resigned.
Earlier in the day, Bhardwaj accepted Patil’s resignation and directed the state government to recommend the name of a former judge to be appointed as the next head of the anti-graft institution that was set up in 1986, making Karnataka the first state to do so.
The ombudsman is appointed by the governor on the advice of the chief minister in consultation with the Karnataka High Court chief justice, the state legislative assembly speaker, legislative council chairman and leaders of opposition in both the assembly and council.
Patil, 71, a former Supreme Court judge who took oath Aug 3 as the state’s sixth Lokayukta, is the first ombudsman in the country to resign amid controversy.
Though Patil denied wrong doing in buying a 4,012 square feet plot in his wife Annapurna’s name from Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society near Nagavara on the city’s outskirts in 2006, he asked her to surrender the registered site Sep 14.
According to the state cooperative housing society rules, citizens who already own a plot or a house in a city are not eligible to get another site from a housing society, as they (sites) are sold at prices much lower than the market price for the members of a society.
Patil’s contention was that his wife was not allotted the site by the Vyalikaval society but was bought on an outright basis in an auction held with the state government’s permission.