Dismissed

Mr Hemanna B Mallur v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2021WP/36614/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that mere criminal acquittal does not automatically vitiate departmental proceedings initiated first, especially where evidence differs significantly and disciplinary proceedings are more proximate to the incident.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed and disciplinary proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Mr Hemanna B Mallur Vs the Registrar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.36614/2018 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Mr. HEMANNA B. MALLUR S/O LATE BHEEMAPAP B. MALLUR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS A INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY. JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-04. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI P.N.HEGDE, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶13

2 . ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIIRIES-7 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI V.S.ARABATTI, ADV.)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA

¶16

¶17

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.5513/2018 AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A7 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A5.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.7.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.5513/2018 and the order dated 11.6.2018 passed in Case

¶21

No.LOK/INQ/159/2013/ARE-7 by the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

Briefly stated the facts are that the Lokayukta police having laid the charge sheet against the petitioner, the Special Court has framed the charges against him, the respondent has issued the Articles of Charges on 25.5.2013, pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Court on 5.4.2018, acquitting the petitioner of charges, petitioner has filed an application

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

on the file of the respondent seeking for dropping of the disciplinary proceedings which came to be rejected by an order dated 11.6.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

vehemently argued that the Special Court which seized of the matter has framed the charge to the effect that the accused being the public servant inspected the shops at Marathahalli, Koramangala, Krishnarajapuram, Varthur and other places for checking weights and measures and demanded to pay the bribe amount

¶27

along with the Government fees and accordingly on credible information received on 5.6.2009, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta conducted the raid in the presence of the witnesses and during the search it was found that, as per the instructions of the accused,

¶28

¶29

one Laxmipathi collected Government fees and extra amount of Rs.150/- each from nine persons amounting to Rs.1,350/-. These charges before the Special Court as well as Articles of charges before the respondent, the documents sought to be introduced, the witnesses who are supposed to be examined in both the cases are one and the same. Considering the same, the Special Court after the full fledged trial honourably acquitted the petitioner from the offences holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges; demand and acceptance are not proved and hence the petitioner has

¶30

been acquitted without employing the word “beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt”. In this background, the respondent ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶31

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Bhaskar Reddy

¶32

and another Vs. Superintendent of Police and

¶33

¶34

another reported in (2015)2 SCC 365 and Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another reported in (1999)3 SCC 679 submitted that the petitioner having honourably acquitted after a regular trial and on hot contest, it would be unjust and unfair to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate these vital aspects in a right perspective while dismissing the application.

¶35

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent supporting the impugned order submitted that the disciplinary proceedings stand on a different footing. Acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case would not have any bearing to the departmental enquiry initiated by the competent Authority.

¶36

We have given our anxious consideration to

¶37

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶38

¶39

The moot points that arise for our

¶40

consideration are:

¶41

1. Whether the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case (Spl.C.C.No.117/2010) would absolve him from the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the competent Authority?

¶42

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner?

¶43

It is trite law that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle an employee to be absolved from the charges leveled against him. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it is ordinarily said that the accused was honourably acquitted. It is well settled that the basis for the proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in distinct

¶44

- 7 -

¶45

and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct was being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings was also different from that required in a criminal case. In the Departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

¶46

In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶47

Capt.M.Paul Anthony , supra, the raid was conducted on the residence of the appellant therein and he was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet. In

¶48

¶49

the interregnum period the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case with a categorical finding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. In the meantime the appellant had already been dismissed from service on the basis of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The appellant had requested for stay of departmental proceedings till conclusion of criminal case on the ground that the raid conducted at his residence was also the subject matter of criminal proceedings which was not acceded to. The normal distinction which is usually drawn between the departmental and criminal proceedings were not applicable in the said case since the facts and evidence in departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference.

¶50

In the case of S.Bhaskar Reddy and

¶51

another , supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the effect of acquittal in the criminal proceedings on departmental proceedings held that both the Tribunal

¶52

¶53

and the High Court erred in not considering the undisputed fact regarding honourable acquittal of the appellants on the charges in the criminal case which were similar in the disciplinary proceedings which was recorded by the trial judge on appreciation of evidence on record in honourably acquitting appellants therein while they were working in the railway police.

¶54

However in the present case, the petitioner

¶55

was acquitted from the charges leveled against him for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 primarily on the ground that there was no formal complaint given by any shop owners regarding demand of bribe. All the shop owners examined before the court have turned hostile. For lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the commission of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner/accused was found not guilty. In such circumstances, the

¶56

10 -

¶57

judgments referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be of no assistance. The departmental proceedings being more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings in view of the acquittal in the criminal case. The Tribunal having applied its mind to these material aspects, has rightly rejected the application. We do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned.

¶58

Writ Petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. The disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded in an expedite manner.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Dvr:

Mr Hemanna B Mallur v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hemanna B Mallur v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaju Thomas Vs Union of India

E Munisamy Vs the Union of India

Ramakrishna Reddy v Vs the Union of India

Sri B K Prakash Vs Sri B K Sundara Shetty

Rakesha Vs Sri Cheluvaraju

Sri. Chandrappa Vs Sri. Shaukath Ali Hussain