Allowed

Sri Siddalingaiah S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/4225/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A meter reader acquitted of a bribery trap faced a departmental enquiry on the same witnesses and evidence, resulting in compulsory retirement and permanent withholding of 25% of pension. The court found the penalty unsustainable since acquittal rested on proof failure, not doubt, and quashed the disciplinary order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 3.2.2021 (Annexure-M) quashed; respondents directed to grant all consequential benefits.

Sri Siddalingaiah S Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4225 OF 2021(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SIDDALINGAIAH S

¶9

S/O LATE SATHYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS METER READER R/AT NO.293, EWS, 7^TH B MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA TOWN BANGALORE - 560 064

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009

¶15

3 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

¶16

¶17

M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI.ASHWIN.S.HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-2 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2021 ANNEXURE-M AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2021 BEARING NO.KAVIPRANINI/ B21/ 23533 / 2011-12 PASSED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order of penalty of compulsory retirement as well as withholding of 25% of pension permanently imposed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-M and consequently, a mandamus is sought to grant all consequential benefits.

¶24

¶25

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶26

Petitioner faced both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings arising from the allegation of corruption. A trap was laid in the office of the petitioner and that led to filing of charge sheet by the police after obtaining sanction from respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court on appreciation of the evidence on record acquitted the petitioner of all the charges.

¶27

On same set of evidence, respondent No.3 made a recommendation to respondent No.2 to initiate enquiry against the petitioner and respondent No.1 entrusted respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry. The same set of witnesses examined in the criminal proceedings were examined in the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer has submitted a report holding that charge leveled against the petitioner is

¶28

¶29

proved. The Board has passed a resolution to impose penalty of compulsory retirement as well as

¶30

withholding of 25% of pension permanently.

¶31

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present

¶32

petition is filed.

¶33

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the judgments cited.

¶35

It would be useful to cull out the charges in

¶36

the criminal case and the charges in the departmental

¶37

enquiry and the witnesses examined in both the

¶38

cases:

¶39

Charges in Criminal Trial:	Charges in the Departmental Enquiry:
"That, you DGO-1	"That, you DGO-1 Sri B.R.
B.R.Shashikanth and DGO-2	Shashikanth and DGO-2
Sri. Sri. H.V.Mahadevaprasad while working as 2^ndDivision	Sri H.V. Mahadevaprasad while working as 2nd
Surveyors at the Taluk Survey	Division Surveyors at the
Office of Chamarajanagar	Taluk Survey Office of
Taluk & District, the	Chamarajanagar Taluk &
complainant namely Sri J.	District, the complainant

¶40

¶41

Asadulla Shariff S/o Late namely Sri J.Asadulla C.M.Jaffer Shariff had filed an Shariff S/o Late C.M.Jaffer application on 18/10/2007 on Shariff had filed an behalf of his mother Smt. application on 18/10/2007 Zaheerunnisa and his on behalf of his mother maternal uncle Sri. Smt Zaheerunnisa and his Rasheedsab, as they were maternal uncle Sri. sanctioned with land of 4 Rasheedsab, as they were acres each in Sy. No. 104/17 sanctioned with land of 4 and 104/18 respectively acres each in situated in Shivapura village Sy.No.104/17 and 104/18 and requested to fix respectively situated in boundaries of the said lands Shivapura village and by paying necessary charges requested to fix and then you DGO-1 asked boundaries of the said the complainant on lands by paying necessary 25/06/2008 to pay bribe of charges and then you Rs.5000/- for survey and to DGO-1 asked the fix the boundaries of the said complainant on lands and after bargain 25/06/2008 to pay bribe demand was reduced to of Rs.5000/- for survey 4500/- and advance bribe of and to fix the boundaries Rs. 500/- was paid to you of the said lands and after DGO-1 and on 30/6/2008 you bargain demand was DGO-1 received the balance reduced to Rs.4500/-and bribe of Rs.4000/- from the advance bribe of Rs.500/complainant at Taluka Survey was paid to you DGO-1 office and handed over the and on 30/6/2008 you same to you DGO-2 to show DGO-1 received the official favour, failing to balance bribe of Rs. maintain absolute integrity 4000/from the and devotion to duty, the act complainant at Taluka of which was un-becoming of Survey office and handed Government Servants and over the same to you thereby committed misDGO-2 to show official conduct as enumerated U/R favour, failing maintain 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka absolute integrity and Civil Service (Conduct) Rules devotion to duty, the act 1966." of which was un-becoming

¶42

¶43

of Government Servants
and thereby committed
mis-conduct as
enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to
(iii) of Karnataka Civil
Service (Conduct) Rules
1966."

¶44

11. During the criminal trial, nine witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got Exs.P1 to P23 marked. In the DE, seven witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and D.W.1 & D.W.2. The list of witness is as follows:

¶45

Witnesses in Criminal Trial:	Witnesses in Departmental Enquiry:
1. Sri. Asadula Shariff (Complainant) PW-1	1. Sri. Asadula Shariff (Complainant) PW-1
2. Sri. Chikkabasavaiah (Panch Witness) PW-2	2. Sri. Venkatesh (Shadow Witness) PW-2
3. Sri. Venkatesh (Shadow Witness) PW-3	3. Sri. Chikkabasavaiah (Panch Witness) PW-3
4. G Prakash- PW-4	4. Sri. D.Jayaram (IO) PW-4
5. Rasheed Sab-PW-5	5. Sri.M.Dharmendra (IO) PW-5
6. Sri.Prasad – PW-6
7. Sri.K. Gurusiddaiah

¶46

¶47

PW-7 8. Sri. M Dharmendra (IO) PW-8 9. Sri. D. Jayaram (IO) PW-9

¶48

Para 27 of the judgment rendered in Special Corruption Case No.18/2010 would be relevant, which is extracted as under:

¶49

“27. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have carefully perused the evidence on record once again which does not prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused voluntarily to do official favour. Ex.P.27 is the explanation of the accused. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the explanation of the accused who gave at the time of alleged trap. On reading of Ex.P.27 reveals that on 1.1.2009 he was on leave. On the same day at about 12.00 noon Assistant Executive Engineer called upon him over phone to come to the office. He came to the office on the instructions of his officer Assistant Executive Engineer who opened the almirah and he has not received any amount from the complainant. The said fact has been corroborated the evidence of PW.1 Vijayakumar shadow witness. Ex.P.26 is

¶50

¶51

the copy of attendance register dated 1.1.2009 not found the signature of the accused to come to the office on that day. PW.5 has not recovered the documents to prove that the accused was working on 1.1.2009 in BESCOM office. Ex.P.26 has supported the explanation of the accused at Ex.P.27. Contrary to Ex.P.26, the prosecution has not placed any material before the Court. Viewed from any angle, the evidence on record does not prove the acceptance of bribe by the accused voluntarily to do official favour to PW.3 complainant. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by placing cogent, consistent and corroborative evidence before the Court. Accordingly, I answer the point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative.”

¶52

7. In determining the maintainability of the

¶53

departmental proceedings, following acquittal in the criminal case, it is imperative to distinguish the burden of proof required in each forum. While acquittal in criminal case does not directly bar the initiation of departmental proceedings, the reasons for acquittal and evidence presented therein must be carefully considered. Para 27 of the judgment culled

¶54

¶55

out supra, clearly clinches the controversy regarding maintainability of the departmental enquiry on same set of materials. Given the acquittal order and the reasons recorded therein by the learned Special Judge coupled with acceptance of defence evidence, this Court is more than satisfied that the acquittal judgment serves as a significant indicator of lack of sufficient evidence to establish the charges even under the lower standard of proof required in departmental proceedings. It is pertinent to note that while criminal Court ultimately acquitted the petitioner, the basis for acquittal was not grounded in the benefit of doubt but rather on the specific finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements particularly the purported demand and acceptance integral to establish corruption. The culled out para 27 supra, also clearly reveals that the defence evidence more particularly Ex.P27 which

¶56

¶57

substantiated the claim of the petitioner that he was on leave on the alleged date of trap was accepted by the criminal Court. The Special Judge was of the view that the evidence presented by the petitioner has successfully rebutted the allegations raised by the prosecution in the criminal proceedings.

¶58

The details of charges and witnesses examined also reveals that while five witnesses were examined in criminal proceedings only three witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry and no new evidence was introduced in the lateral proceedings. The discrepancy in the treatment of evidence between the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry, coupled with absence of any new evidence introduced in the departmental proceedings, undermines the reliability and probative value of finding recorded by the Enquiry officer while submitting his report. Therefore, this Court has taken

¶59

¶60

cognizance of the fact that no new evidence was introduced during the departmental proceedings indicating a substantial overlap in the evidentiary

¶61

record between the two forums.

¶62

The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of WP No.8494/2020, ( SRI.B.M.NAGESH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS) is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. In departmental proceedings relating to corruption allegations, the imposition of penalties typically require a higher standard of proof than a mere preponderance of probability. Therefore, it is essential that evidentiary threshold for imposing penalties in such cases is met with a higher degree of certainty. This high standard of proof ensures that allegations are thoroughly substantiated.

¶63

¶64

In the present case on hand, the enquiry

¶65

officer has held that the charges are proved and the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty based on preponderance of probability. The disciplinary authority has not taken cognizance of the explanation offered by the petitioner. In the light of the critical discrepancies and procedural shortcoming, the Court finds that the penalty imposed in the departmental proceedings is not sustainable. After closure scrutiny of records, this Court has also discerned that the penalty imposed in the departmental proceedings predominately premised on the evidence and the testimony presented during criminal proceedings. This reliance of evidence by respondents raises concern regarding double jeopardy and also demonstrates procedural irregularities.

¶66