The State of Karnataka Vs Mahesh B

SRI. MAHESH B., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O G. BASAPPA, RETIRED SURVEYOR, C/O K.N. GOVINDA SHETTY, NO.15, II MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, DATTAGALLY, M-BLOCK, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 09.01.2025 PASSED IN A.No-3968/2024 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A. ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2025 PASSED IN A.No-3968/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶30

The State of Karnataka in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is before us, calling in question the order dated 09.01.2025, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.3968/2024, allowing the application in-part confirming the compulsory retirement of applicant from service, however set aside the further order of penalty of withholding 20% of pension of the applicant permanently.

¶31

The parties are referred to as per the rankings before the Tribunal.

¶32

The factual matrix of the case involved in the petition are as follows:

¶33

Per Applicant:

¶34

The applicant belongs to cadre of Surveyor, Taluk Office, Puttur and deputed to Taluk Office,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Bantwal on deputation. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri.Dejappa Poojary that, the applicant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- for conducting survey and issuing 11E sketch to enable the complainant to purchase the property in survey No.142/1A measuring 0.49 cents and 142/5 measuring 0.15 cents, situated in Kadeshwalya Village, Bantwal Taluk, standing in the name of one Lakshmana. As the applicant has not issued the sketch despite the survey has been conducted, the complainant contacted him over phone on 28.06.2013. The complainant further asked a sum of Rs.1,500/- for issuance of the said sketch. In pursuance of the complaint before the Police attached to Karnataka Lokayukta, a raid was conducted and was successful. The Karnataka Lokayukta after conducting investigation filed charge sheet before the trial Court.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Based on the said complaint and investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, issued an inspection note on 17.09.2013 and sought explanation from the applicant. The applicant submitted his explanation to the inspection note and sought to drop the proceedings. The respondent No.2Karnataka Lokayukta has recommended the respondent No.1 for initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant and entrust the enquiry to the Lokayukta. The respondent No.1 in terms of recommendation entrusted the departmental enquiry under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. (‘CCA Rules 1957’ for short).

¶41

The Karnataka Lokayukta subsequent to entrustment, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who has issued Articles of charge along with show cause notice. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and to the Articles of charge. Not

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

satisfied with the reply submitted by the applicant, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry.

¶45

During the course of enquiry, three

¶46

witnesses have been examined by the department as PW1 to PW3, 12 documents were produced and are marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P12. The applicant was examined as DW-1 and produced one document and marked as Ex-D1. The Enquiry Officer after hearing both the sides came to a finding that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved and forwarded the enquiry report to respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta, for taking appropriate action. The respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta, after receipt of report, forwarded the same to the Government along with recommendation. The Government upon receipt of enquiry report along with recommendation issued second show cause notice calling upon the applicant to submit his reply to the annexed report as well as recommendation.

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The applicant submitted his reply to the

¶50

second show cause notice. The Government upon consideration of reply as well as the report, the recommendation and the entire material placed before it, passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement further withholding 20% of pension permanently.

¶51

Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement and as well as withholding 20% of pension permanently, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.3968/2024, calling in question the legality and correctness of the said order.

¶52

Both the respondent No.1-State as well as respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta, filed statement of objections, supporting the enquiry report, recommendations and the order passed thereon and sought to dismiss the application.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

10. The applicant has submitted before the

¶56

Tribunal that the special Court in the criminal case passed an order of acquittal, acquitting the applicant of all charges, as the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe as contented by it. An appeal by the State has been preferred before this Court in Crl.A.No.2169/2023 and is pending consideration. In view of acquittal in criminal proceedings, the departmental enquiry which is based on the very same set of facts and evidence requires reconsideration as the acquittal has bearing on the departmental enquiry and sought to allow the application and quash the impugned orders in the application.

¶57

The State Government as well as

¶58

Karnataka Lokayukta in unison in contrast submitted that, the acquittal by the Sessions Court is not a final verdict, since the appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal pending before this Court

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

in Crl.A.No.2169/2023 and further submitted that the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry proceedings are different and distinct. In view of settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proof of charges in criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt and whereas in the departmental enquiry which is just preponderance of probabilities. The Enquiry Officer having considered the entire material before it and on preponderance of probabilities comes to a clear conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe having been proved concluded the enquiry.

¶62

The Government upon consideration of the same in the light of the documents placed before it, issued second show cause notice and observing all the procedure in terms of the Provisions contained under CCA Rules, 1957. In these circumstances, the order impugned does not require any interference at

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the hands of Tribunal and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶67

Upon rival submission, the Tribunal was

¶68

of the opinion an acquittal in a special case by the Sessions Court cannot be a ground available for the applicant to seek for interference in the departmental enquiry as both are distinct and different on the scale of proof of charges levelled. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the applicant on the said count, confirming the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the applicant. However, the Tribunal held that withholding 20% of pension of the applicant amounts to imposition of double penalty on the applicant and further held that the order to that extent require to be modified. Consequently, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority to the extent of withholding 20% of pension and set aside

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

the same. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this petition by the State.

¶73

Heard Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned

¶74

Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶75

Sri.Vikas Rojipura, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the enquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the applicant proved and the order of penalty, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement is reasonable, proper and proportionate, erred in setting aside the order of imposing penalty of withholding of 20% of pension of the applicant permanently. Once the enquiry report having been accepted and the penalty stemmed on that held to be reasonable and proportionate to the charges leveled, setting aside of order of withholding of 20% of pension of the applicant permanently by the Tribunal, is uncalled for and not sustainable in law.

¶76

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

To buttress his argument, he has relied on

¶79

the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.10.2024 in WP.No.1647/2020, in the case

¶80

of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. H.S. KANTHI . The Co-ordinate Bench has held that the Tribunal having once observed that the demanding and receiving bribe is a serious social morality, the serious social morality needs to be dealt with firmly, could not have interfered with the punishment. Sri.Rojipura contend that once, the Tribunal has recorded its findings that the punishment of compulsory retirement is reasonable and proportionate, must not have interfered with the order of withholding of 20% of pension permanently,

¶81

in view of gravity of charge, as the case is relating to corruption. He further submits that, as the corruption is decaying the social norms and defeating the public interest required to be dealt with iron hands. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal requires re-consideration.

¶82

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

17. Having considered the submission, we are

¶85

not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The reason being the judgment referred to by the learned Additional Government Advocate is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the judgment referred, the Government has passed an order of dismissal and challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the charges levelled against the applicants therein having been proved, however without assigning any reason held that the punishment of dismissal imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of offence and converted the order into compulsory retirement. In other words, substituted the order of dismissal with compulsory retirement. It is in those circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench was of the firm opinion that unless and until the Court records reason that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charge which shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court would not get jurisdiction to

¶86

14 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

substitute the punishment. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench has allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application.

¶90

In the present case on hand, the department has passed an order of compulsory retirement so also an order of withholding 20% of pension of the applicant permanently. The Tribunal at paragraph No.12 of its order has clearly stated that the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is reasonable and proper. However, withholding of further 20% of pension of the applicant permanently would cause hardship on the applicant. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal passed the order confirming the order of penalty of compulsory retirement but setting aside the order of further penalty of withholding 20% of pension of the applicant permanently.

¶91

15 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:54749-DB WP No. 30449 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

19. Having considered the entire material

¶95

before us in the judicial review, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, as no case is made out by the Government. In these circumstances, the petition sans merit and is

¶96

dismissed .

¶97

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶98

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶99

PK

¶100

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn

The State of Karnataka v. Mahesh B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Mahesh B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H B Somashekar Vs D Rajashekar

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Vs M/S Infosys Ltd.

Bosch Automotive Electronics India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax

Dr. Vani. N Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Pradeep Kumar. K Vs Dr. Hareesh. K

Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka