Sri M S Yogamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri M S Yogamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's order upholding the petitioner's dismissal from service was left undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether acquittal in the criminal case, founded on the same evidence and witnesses as the departmental enquiry, entitles the petitioner to exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings. +2 more

Court's answer

The standard of proof differs: in criminal proceedings charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings the authority's satisfaction is guided by preponderance of probability; applying that test, the Enquiry Officer's conclusion is well-founded and supported by the record.

Ratio / Principle

The acquittal in the criminal case is not attributable to absence of evidence against the DGO but to insufficiency of that evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly, the contention that acquittal operates to exonerate the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings is untenable.

Key takeaways

Mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not automatically exonerate the delinquent from the disciplinary proceedings unless the defence evidence in the disciplinary proceedings successfully disproves the charge.ratio¶¶83
In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 the Court does not sit in appeal against an order imposing penalty in a disciplinary enquiry; interference is warranted only where the decision is arrived at without any evidence.ratio¶¶80
The findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal are well-founded and supported by evidence; the petitioner pointed out no perversity or ground warranting interference with the Tribunal's order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – Departmental enquiry – Trap bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of. Holding: the standard of proof in criminal proceedings (beyond all reasonable doubt) differs from that in disciplinary proceedings (preponderance of probability); mere acquittal does not automatically exonerate the delinquent unless the defence evidence in the disciplinary proceedings disproves the charge. The acquittal arose from insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, not from absence of evidence; the enquiry record established demand and acceptance of gratification and the seizure of tainted money. Under Article 226 the High Court does not sit in appeal over a penalty imposed in a disciplinary enquiry and interferes only where the decision is arrived at without any evidence; the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal were supported by evidence and no perversity was shown. Union of India v. Dilip Pal relied on; Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh held to be of no assistance to the petitioner; the demand-and-acceptance requirement drawn from Neeraj Dutta satisfied on the enquiry record. Writ petition dismissed; dismissal from service upheld.

1 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No.13234 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI M. S. YOGAMURTHY, S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, (UNDER THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL) R/AT THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577502.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI M.S. BHAGWATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJ S JAIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUIILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA 577502.

2 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA 577502.

THE TAHASILDAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577502.

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALUR 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.5804/2019 AT ANNEXURE-E.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), K. V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

and

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

3 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.5804/2019 has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'].

The brief facts of the case are that one Thippeswamy lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police against the petitioner alleging demand of illegal gratification of ₹1,500/- for effecting change of Katha , while the petitioner was serving as the Village Accountant of Singapura Village. The Lokayukta Police conducted a trap and seized a tainted amount of ₹1,000/-. A charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after obtaining

4 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

sanction from the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga. In the meantime, the Government, by order dated 16.10.2012, entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, ‘the KCS (CCA) Rules’], and Articles of Charge were issued on 21.12.2012.

3.1 The criminal case was concluded by acquitting the petitioner on 06.02.2015, as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.

3.2 The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.02.2018 holding the charges proved against the petitioner, and the Lokayukta, by its recommendation dated 26.02.2018, proposed that the petitioner be dismissed from service. Consequently, a second show-cause notice was issued on 19.03.2018. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, placing reliance on the order of acquittal passed by the Special Court. However, the Government, by order dated 06.05.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service.

5 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

3.3 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application holding that acquittal in a criminal case would not ipso facto result in exoneration from the charges in the departmental enquiry, and that the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the complainant stood proved in the departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal.

Sri M.S. Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complaint alleging demand of bribe for effecting change of Katha is dated 12.08.2009, whereas the application of the complainant had already been attended to on 19.06.2009. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner neither demanded any bribe nor had any pending work of the complainant. It is contended that the tainted money was thrust upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that mere acceptance of cash, without proof of demand and pendency of work, is insufficient to establish the alleged offences. In the present case, both elements are conspicuously absent.

6 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, for the very same incident, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The Special Court, by judgment dated 06.02.2015, honourably acquitted the petitioner, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the witnesses and documentary evidence relied upon in the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry are identical. There being no change in circumstances or material evidence, it is submitted that a view contrary to that taken by the Special Court cannot be sustained in the departmental proceedings.

5.2 In the alternative, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. It is further submitted that, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is now aged about 57 years, the punishment of dismissal may be modified to that of compulsory retirement.

Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, submits that the complaint clearly narrates

the nature of the pending work and the manner in which the demand was made. Learned counsel further submits that on an

7 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

earlier occasion, a demand was made and the same was paid, and when a second demand was made for the very same work, the complaint was lodged and a trap was laid, resulting in the seizure of the tainted money.

6.1 It is further submitted that the acquittal in the criminal case was on the ground of benefit of doubt, and mere acquittal in a criminal case would not exonerate a government servant from departmental proceedings. Learned counsel also submits that the order of acquittal has been challenged and is pending consideration before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.654/2015. It is lastly submitted that the enquiry report, based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe, which by itself is sufficient to hold the charge proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that he supports the submissions made by Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are not inclined

8 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the reasons stated hereunder:

(i) It is not in dispute that the complainant approached

the petitioner, while he was serving as the Village Accountant of Singapura Village, to effect change of Katha consequent to the partition between the complainant and his brother. This aspect establishes that the petitioner was responsible for effecting the change of Katha . The complaint provides a clear account of the status of the work and the demand made by the Delinquent Government Officer (DGO). The Disciplinary Authority examined three witnesses, while the defence examined two witnesses. PW1, the complainant, deposed that after the death of his father, he submitted an application for change of Katha , which was forwarded to the Village Accountant. In that regard, he met the DGO, who demanded a bribe to effect the change of Katha . The complainant paid ₹1,000/- to the DGO. Subsequently, the DGO demanded a further bribe of ₹1,000/-, and it was at this stage that the complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta. PW1 provided a detailed account of the events from the initial demand to the seizure of the tainted money. PW1 was subjected to extensive cross-examination, and suggestions were made by the defence

9 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

to disprove the pendency of the work, the demand, and the seizure of the tainted money. However, the evidence of PW1 remained consistent, and no contradictory material was elicited. The defence suggestion that the tainted money was forced upon the DGO is expressly negatived.

(ii) PW2, the shadow witness, deposed in favour of the Disciplinary Authority, providing details of the incident in question. The suggestion by the defence that the Investigating Officer forcibly placed the tainted money into the pockets of the DGO is expressly negatived. The evidence of PW2 clearly establishes both the acceptance of the tainted money and its subsequent seizure from the DGO.

(iii) PW3, the Investigating Officer, deposed to the complete enquiry, commencing from the stage of registration of the complaint up to the gathering of evidence.

(iv) The defence witnesses, DW1 and DW2, officials of the Revenue Department, testified regarding the procedure generally followed for change of Katha . Their testimonies, however, are of no assistance to the DGO, particularly with regard to the charges levelled against him.

10 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

(v) The charge sheet was filed for offences punishable

under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court, however, acquitted the petitioner of the charged offences. It is the contention of the petitioner that the acquittal relates to the very offence for which the departmental enquiry was conducted and is based on the same documentary evidence and witnesses. Therefore, it is submitted that once acquitted in the criminal case, the DGO ought to be exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. PWs 1, 2, and 3 in the departmental proceedings were examined as PWs 1, 2, and 6 in the criminal proceedings. The evidence of PW1 remained consistent, and PW2, the shadow witness, also supported the prosecution. The evidence of PW6, the Investigating Officer, likewise remained consistent. The Special Court observed that the theory advanced by the prosecution did not inspire confidence, as discrepancies and contradictions were apparent in the evidence. Ultimately, the accused was acquitted, as the charges were not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

(vi) On consideration of the evidence and on a careful perusal of the material in the criminal proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner was responsible for effecting the change of Katha and that the tainted money was seized. It is a well-

11 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

settled principle of law that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings differs. In criminal proceedings, the charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings, the satisfaction of the authority is guided by the preponderance of probability. Applying the test of preponderance of probability to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer is well-founded and supported by the evidence on record.

(vii) The Disciplinary Authority, while imposing punishment, has rightly appreciated the findings of the Enquiry Report and placed reliance on the evidence. The Tribunal, upon appreciation, has also correctly held that the Enquiry Report is based on the evidence on record.

This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal against an order imposing penalty in a disciplinary enquiry. Interference is warranted only where the decision is arrived at without any evidence. In the present case, it is not contended that the penalty was imposed in the absence of evidence on record. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, and the Tribunal are well-founded and based on

12 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

evidence, holding the charge proved against the petitioner. Mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not automatically exonerate the DGO from the disciplinary proceedings unless the defence evidence in the disciplinary proceedings successfully disproves the charge.

On a careful examination of the evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, it is evident that the charge against the DGO is established on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities. It may be noted that the acquittal in the criminal case is not attributable to the absence of evidence against the DGO; rather, it arises from the fact that such evidence was insufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the petitioner’s contention that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings would operate to exonerate him in the disciplinary proceedings is untenable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Dilip Pal , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423 ], while examining the scope of interference by courts in disciplinary proceedings, held that interference is not warranted unless the case is bereft of evidence or the decision is founded on findings which are perverse or unreasonable. In the present case, as

13 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

noted hereinabove, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, and the Tribunal are supported by evidence.

The reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others [(2024) 1 SCC 175] is of no assistance to the petitioner. PWs 1, 2, and 3 in the departmental enquiry were examined as PWs 1, 2 and 6 in the criminal proceedings. The testimonies of these witnesses in both proceedings remained consistent. The Special Court did not doubt the credibility of these witnesses but acquitted the petitioner on the basis of other evidence, applying the principles governing proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the same evidence is examined under the standard of preponderance of probability, the charge stands established against the petitioner/DGO.

Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 890] , to canvass a proposition similar to that in Ram Lal (supra) . For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, this judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner. Reliance is further placed on the

14 -

WP No. 13234 of 2022

judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 280] , to contend that demand and acceptance of gratification are sine qua non for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence brought on record in the departmental enquiry establishes both the demand and acceptance. Furthermore, the tainted money was seized from the DGO, and such seizure stands proved.

The petitioner has not pointed out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, or the Tribunal, nor has he made out any exception or demonstrated any ground warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal.

In view of the foregoing findings, the writ petition is

dismissed .

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

MV