A Village Accountant dismissed via compulsory retirement after a proved departmental charge of demanding bribe challenged his punishment despite criminal acquittal. The High Court held acquittal does not bar disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 24833 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI S MANJUNATH S/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT NOW UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT KAPARAHALLIL CIRCLE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
R/AT PARASHUMPARA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 538
Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. DHANUSH M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…PETITIONER
NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022
EMAIL. [email protected]
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/10/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5233/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED BEFORE THE HON’BLE KAT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Application No.5233/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru1 , whereunder the application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-A17), wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service and for a direction to take back the petitioner with consequential benefits, has been rejected by the Tribunal.
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’
_1000/- to his elder brother Imam Khasim who was blind person and on 25.02.2011, you asked the complainant for bribe of_ 2,000/- and after request by the complainant, you reduced demanded bribe to _1,000/- and on 26.02.2011, took the said bribe of_ 1,000/- from the complainant to pay pension enhanced by the Government, failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the act of which was un-becoming of a Government Servant, and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966.”dated 21.1.2020 (Annexure-A13) it was held that charge against the petitioner was proved. Vide recommendation dated 22.1.2020 (Annexure-A14), the second respondent recommended imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, consequent to which, the first respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 2.3.2020 (Annexure-A15) to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply to the same vide
NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022
explanation dated 13.5.2020 (Annexure-A16). The first respondent, vide order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-A17) imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Application No.5233/2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 14.10.2022 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.
learned counsel for respondent No.2 justifies the order passed
by the Tribunal and submits that the said contention was urged before the Tribunal, wherein it was noticed that the charge against the petitioner had been adequately proved in the enquiry and that the criminal case and departmental enquiry operate on different fields with different objectives and hence, the order of the Tribunal ought not to be interfered with.
as DW.1 as well as another witness has been examined as DW.2.
1,000/- to his elder brother, who was a blind person and the said enhancement having been granted by the government, the petitioner demanded a bribe of 2,000/-, which was reduced to 1,000/- for payment of the said enhanced pension. It is forthcoming that DW.1 in his crossexamination admitted that he attended the file pertaining to the elder brother of PW.1. He also admitted that the amount of 1,000/- was seized from him and the shirt worn by him was also seized.1,000/- and in the circumstances, the said sum of 1,000/- was paid by PW.1 to the petitioner. However, the enquiry officer after appreciation of the material on record has recorded a finding that the said explanation by the petitioner is only an after thought to escape the charges framed against him. The petitioner, in the enquiry also put forth a contention that he had been acquitted in the criminal case. However, theNC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022
enquiry officer while considering the said contention has noticed that in the criminal case the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in the departmental enquiry the evidence has to be scrutinized on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and hence, rejected the said contention.
2 (2024) 1 SCC 175
recorded in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. However, in the present case, in the enquiry, it was noticed that the petitioner had admitted that he worked on the file of the elder brother of PW.1 and the receipt of money was also admitted.
“ 15. The enquiry report concluded in this backdrop that the misconduct was established on the basis of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3. Referring to the evidence of the complainant, the enquiry officer held that if in truth the respondent had not demanded a bribe and PW 1 was returning a loan amount to the respondent as stated by DW 1, there was no necessity for the complainant to visit the office of the Lokayukta and to sign a complaint. The complainant was also present for the pre-trap and trap mahazar and appended his signatures. The enquiry report finds that there was no reason for PW 2 and PW 3 to depose falsely. No material inconsistencies were elicited during the crossexamination by the respondent. Consequently, the defence that the amount which was recovered from the respondent represented a loan was disbelieved and the misconduct was held to be proved.
22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of
3 (2022) 6 SCC 563
NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022
misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. [State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424 and CISF v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 310]”
(emphasis supplied)
C.Nagaraju4 , has held as follows:
“ 9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. [Ajit
4 (2019) 10 SCC 367
Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020] In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. [State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455]”
(emphasis supplied)
above, the contention put forth by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. The writ petition is dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
ND
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding compulsory retirement despite the petitioner's criminal acquittal on bribery charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Lal v. State of RajasthanDistinguished¶15
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. UmeshRelied on¶16
State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. C.NagarajuRelied on¶17
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. C.Nagaraju, (2019) 10 SCC 367 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
S Manjunath
State of Karnataka
Karnataka Lokayukta
S.G.PANDIT
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court