Dismissed

Sri B S Chandrashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021WP/51104/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired police sub-inspector seeking to quash orders of compulsory retirement. The petitioner argued that his previous acquittal in criminal proceedings based on the same facts mandated exoneration in departmental proceedings. The court rejected this, holding that since the acquittal was solely on account of the complainant turning h

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging departmental proceedings and penalties of dismissal/compulsory retirement was dismissed as bereft of merits.

Sri B S Chandrashekar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD 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.51104/2015 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI B.S.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKED POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, BYTRAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶10

R/AT NO.11, M.M.ROAD CROSS, NEAR VIJAYA TAKIS, BYTRAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 026. ...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KARNATAKA, POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA.)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.348/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.02.2012 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE A-10) AND THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2010 IN APPEAL (1) 14/2007-08 (O.B.NO.27/2010-11) PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE A-8) AND SET ASIDE ALL THE AFORESAID ORDERS.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.06.2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.348/2013 and the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the respondent No.2, inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend all other consequential benefits consequent upon granting aforesaid prayer.

¶22

¶23

On the complaint lodged by the complainant

¶24

against the petitioner with the Lokayukta Police, Shivamogga, alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe amount from him, charge-sheet was filed in a criminal case registered in Spl.C.C.No.2/2007. Simultaneously, the respondent No.2 initiated the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner and ordered for Joint Departmental Enquiry under Rules 6 and 8 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules. The respondent No.2 appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Division, Davanagere as an Enquiry Officer. On the charge memo issued by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed a reply denying the charges and also requested to defer the proceedings till the completion of the criminal case since the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts and identical in nature; the charges, witness, evidence and circumstances are one and the same.

¶25

¶26

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer without appreciation of material

¶27

evidence on record submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted, the Disciplinary Authority/respondent No.2 passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service by order dated 14.10.2010. It transpires that against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 wherein the order of dismissal from service was modified to compulsory retirement by order dated 23.02.2012. Subsequent to disposal of the appeal, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial as per the judicial pronouncement made by the competent Court on 24.08.2012. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed observing that the charge related to performance of official duties and modification

¶28

¶29

of penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement has already been done by the appellate authority. Hence, the present petition.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Tribunal routinely held that no appreciation or re-examination of the evidence could be made by the Tribunal albeit the honourable acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case relating to very set of charges. Inviting the attention of the Court to the order of the learned Sessions and Special Judge in Special (PC) Case No.2/2007, it was strongly argued that the conduct of the complainant is significant to analyze the subject matter of the present writ petition. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy and another

¶31

vs. Superintendent of Police and another reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 and the co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in Aejas Hussain vs. State of Karnataka

¶32

¶33

and others in W.P.No.203239/2019 (D.D.

¶34

29.05.2020), it was submitted that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are identical in nature. The petitioner has been honourably acquitted by the competent court on the same set of facts and therefore the penalty order issued by the Disciplinary Authority based on the same set of facts and evidence is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the petitioner having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and in view of the honourable acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner deserves to be exonerated from the departmental proceedings.

¶35

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶36

justifying the impugned orders submitted that the Special Court has acquitted the petitioner on benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal and acquittal proceedings being a different and distinct from that of

¶37

- 7 -

¶38

departmental proceedings, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

¶39

We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶40

It is apt to refer to the relevant portion of the

¶41

order made by the Special Court in Spl.C.C.No.2/2007, which reads thus:-

¶42

“Since the complainant has turned hostile, the genesis of that story of demand and acceptance is not proved. So, even though, the 1^st accused has taken inconsistent stands in his defence, since the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the 1^st accused, the question of raising the presumption U/Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused have committed the offence

¶43

¶44

as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.”

¶45

8. In the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy supra, the

¶46

Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the meaning of expression “honourable acquittal” referring to the judgments holding the field on the said subject. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inspector

¶47

General of Police vs. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

¶48

9. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold

¶49

Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the criminal case

¶50

¶51

as also the departmental proceedings were based on the identical set of facts but the same without therebeing any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable.

¶52

Having regard to the facts and

¶53

circumstances of the present case, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. More particularly, in view of the complainant turning hostile and the Special Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused having been acquitted on the benefit of doubt, the principles of honourable acquittal would not be applicable to the present set of facts.

¶54