A police head constable punished for contracting a second marriage while his first subsisting challenged the Tribunal's upholding of disciplinary orders. The High Court held the charge was proved on evidence including the first wife's testimony, that criminal acquittal does not affect departmental proceedings, and rejected the writ petition.
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:35037-DB WP No. 31065 of 2019
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. 31065 OF 2019 (S)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S/O BHEEMANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE HC NO. 126
HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT B.H.COLONY, POST P.GRAMA KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT PRESENTLY AT NO.66 6TH BLOCK, BHADRASANKEERNA KSRP QUARTOS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH, ADV.)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:35037-DB WP No. 31065 of 2019
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, FOR REJECTING THE PRAYER IN RESPECT OF REDUCTION OF PAY SCALE TO A MINIMUM OF 5 YEARS AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS VIDE ANNEXURE-C 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 S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioner, a Police Constable who has suffered an
order of punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale of Police Constable for a period of 5 years and to restore the original pay and to grant increment thereafter is before this Court seeking to quash order dated
28.02.2019 in Application No.7479/2010 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
“ ¥ÉÃzÉ.¸ÀASÉå. 72 , ²æÃ.²ªÀ±ÀAPÀgÀ, E.zÀ.¼À, 1 £Éà ¥ÀqÉ, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.¦. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¥Àwß fêÀAvÀ«gÀĪÁUÀ¯Éà CªÀjAzÀ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£É CxÀªÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
zÁR¯ÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtgÁV, PÉ.¹.J¸ï. (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1966 gÀ 14 (J) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀªÉ¸ÀV PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C²¸ÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¹ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ ¸ÀàµÀ× zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀƦ¹ ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ”
the petitioner was that, the petitioner contracted a second marriage while the first wife was alive, without getting divorce or without obtaining permission from the Government. In the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority examined five witnesses including the first wife of the petitioner and the petitioner examined three defence
witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charge against the petitioner is proved. The petitioner
was issued with second show cause notice dated 01.10.2017 enclosing copy of the enquiry report. On receiving reply from the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority – respondent No.4 passed order dated 16.06.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect, treating the period of suspension as suspension. Against the said order of dismissal, petitioner filed appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent by order dated 13.01.2019, set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the petitioner into the service substituting the punishment of dismissal to that of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the scale of Police Constable with a direction to restore the pay after five years and to grant increment afresh on restoration, treating the period of suspension as suspension.
as well as Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed revision before the State Government and the State Government by order dated 18.06.2010 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.7479/2010. The Tribunal under impugned order, dismissed the application observing that the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view by substituting order of dismissal with that of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner to the minimum to be in force for five years and the quantum of punishment is neither shocking nor disproportionate when compared to the gravity of the proved charges. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
petitioner and Sri.C.N.Mahadeswaran, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire
writ petition papers.
marriage of the petitioner. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that there is enough material to prove the charge and the Enquiry Officer taking note of the material on record has rightly held that charge against the petitioner is proved. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that divorce of
first wife by the petitioner is subsequent to the departmental enquiry proceedings and moreover he submits that the charge in criminal proceedings is with regard to Section 498A of Cr.P.C. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
the parties and on careful scrutiny of the material on record, we are of the view that petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with impugned order.
marriage on 12.03.2006, while the first marriage was subsisting. Divorce against first wife was obtained subsequently in M.C.No.810/2007 under judgment dated 02.06.2007. The Disciplinary Authority has examined five witnesses including the first wife of the petitioner. The first wife of petitioner is examined as PW3 and in her evidence,
she states that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 31.10.1999 and further she states that petitioner married one Smt.Nagarathna at Bengaluru. The receipt of the Kalyana Mantap where the petitioner contracted second marriage and also the invitation card are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The evidence of PW3 – first wife of petitioner and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are sufficient to prove the charge. The charge made against the petitioner is proved based on the material evidence on record.
have exonerated the petitioner. It is pertinent to note here itself that the charge in the criminal proceedings related to Section 498A of Cr.P.C., whereas in the departmental proceedings, it is with regard to second marriage. Normally, acquittal in criminal proceedings will not have any bearing on the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings, charges are to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in the criminal proceedings, charges are to be proved on the basis of strict rules of evidence.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LTD., VS. C.NAGARAJU (2019) 10 SCC 367 at paragraph 9 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 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].”
NC: 2024:KHC:35037-DB WP No. 31065 of 2019
and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings and subsequent divorce require exoneration in the departmental proceedings for contracting a second marriage while the first subsisted.
Whether the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum scale for five years was disproportionate to the proved charge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. C.NagarajuRelied on¶11
(2019) 10 SCC 367 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivashankar s/o Bheemanna
The State of Karnataka, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Home Department (Police)
The Director & Inspector General of Police
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State Reserve Police
The Commandant & Disciplinary Authority, 1st Battalion, KSRP
S.G.Pandit
C.M.Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
