The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. N. C. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YERS, RETIRED AS A VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, SOMALPURA CIRCLE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, R/AT 8^TH CROSS, MARALURU RING ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA, TUMAKURU-572 105. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 IN A.No.4154/2024 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.2 in Application No.4154/2024 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶27

The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application and set-aside the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-A17) and further directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

including financial benefits to which the applicant is legally entitled to, in a time bound manner.

¶31

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

¶32

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶33

As per applicant:

¶34

The applicant was initially appointed as a daily wage employee in the department of Sericulture (Pravarthaka) in 1981. His services came to be regularized in 1991, and he was later absorbed in the Department of Revenue as a Village Accountant.

¶35

The applicant was working as a Village Accountant at Bisalahalli Circle, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk in the year 2014. One Sri.Gangahanumanthaiah, S/o Hanumanthaiah, resident of Chikka Gollalahalli Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk filed a complaint on 05.07.2014 before the Police attached to Karnataka Lokayukta, Tumakuru District

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

alleging that the applicant has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- to effect the Katha and RTC in the name of the complainant's wife Smt.Sujatha.M.C with respect to dry land bearing Sy.No.54/3 measuring 0-28 Guntas situated at Kuduvanagunte, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District which was purchased by her. It is further alleged that as the complainant was not willing to pay the amount, he approached the police attached to Lokayukta and lodged a complaint. A Crime No.17/2014 came to be registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C Act' for short).

¶39

The Lokayukta police conducted pre-trial panchanama and handed over the voice recorder to the complainant to record the conversation. On two occasions the raid was unsuccessful. On 05.07.2014, the Police of Karnataka Lokayukta apprehended one Honnegowda, S/o Nanjundaiah, who alleged to have received illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- on behalf of the applicant as per

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

his instructions in the private office of the applicant. The applicant submitted his explanation stating that he never demanded any illegal gratification or received any amount much less the amount through a person Honnegowda. He has further stated in his explanation that the said Honnegowda is a stranger to him and he is a kith and kin to the complainant. Despite the explanation, the investigation officer arrested the applicant and filed charge sheet against him for the offence stated supra under the P.C Act.

¶43

The second respondent-Lokayukta upon receipt of report from the investigation officer forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('K.L Act, 1984' for short), requesting the first respondent to accord sanction to initiate an enquiry against the applicant and sought for entrustment of enquiry.

¶44

The first respondent upon receipt of report under Section 12(3) of the K.L Act, 1984, without application of mind as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the K.L Act, 1984, passed an order entrusting the enquiry under Rule

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals), 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957', for short) for the alleged misconduct as contemplated under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 ('Conduct Rules, 1966' for short).

¶48

Upon entrustment of enquiry, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer on 16.01.2018, issued Articles of charge on the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply to the Articles of charge, denying the charge levelled against him. Not satisfied with the reply, the enquiry officer proceeded to hold the enquiry. Before the enquiry officer, in order to prove the case, the department has examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4. However, the person by name Honnegowda has

¶49

not been summoned as a witness to prove the charge levelled against the applicant. Upon completion of evidence of the department, the applicant examined one witness as DW.1 and examined himself as DW.2 and produced two documents marked as Exs.D1 and 2.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

During the pendency of the enquiry, the Special

¶53

Case No.203/2015 arising out of charge sheet filed by the Police attached to Karnataka Lokayukta was concluded and resulted in order of acquittal vide judgment dated 02.01.2023. The learned Judge at paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the judgment relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER - reported in 2015 10 SCC 152 (Paragraph No.25), held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the applicant and proceeded to acquit the applicant of all charges.

¶54

The applicant during the pendency of the enquiry, produced the copy of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court on the very same set of facts, which ended in acquittal and sought to drop the proceedings. Despite the judgment having been produced before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer proceeded to conclude the enquiry holding that the charges levelled against the applicant has

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

been proved and submitted his report to the Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶58

The Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded the report

¶59

along with recommendations stating that in view of retirement of the Delinquent Government Official, on attaining the age of superannuation pending enquiry, 50% of his monthly pension be withheld permanently. The first respondent upon receipt of enquiry report and recommendation, issued second show cause notice dated 11.10.2023 to the applicant calling for his explanation along with the copy of enquiry report. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating that the criminal case based on the very same set of facts has ended in acquittal and the enquiry on the very same set of facts and evidence is not sustainable in law as the enquiry officer has failed to consider the judgment of acquittal and sought to drop the proceedings. The Government upon receipt of the reply to second show cause notice from the applicant, passed an order imposing penalty of withholding 50% of monthly

¶60

9 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

pension exercising power under Section 214(1)(A)(B) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958.

¶64

Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.4154/2024 calling in question the legality and correctness of the same.

¶65

The respondent No.1-Government as well as respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta accepted notice and filed their separate statement of objections supporting the enquiry and the order of penalty.

¶66

The Tribunal upon consideration of material on record and the rival submissions made at Bar, held that the enquiry officer in his report has not properly appreciated the evidence as he has ignored all the admissions elicited from PWs.1 to 4 in their cross-examination. The only evidence which has been considered by the enquiry officer is the examination-in-chief. The Tribunal further observed that the applicant has been examined as DW.2 and he has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that the work of the

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

complainant was completed in advance and nothing was pending as on the date of commencement of the trap from 30.06.2014 till 05.07.2014 and nothing contra elicited worthwhile to discredit his evidence by the department. Besides this, the Tribunal observed that the investigation officer who has been examined as PW.3 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not arrested Honnegowda and shown him as an accused in the criminal case. The Investigation Officer in Paragraph No.23 of his deposition admitted the suggestion that he has not arrested Honnegowda. He volunteers that he did not arrest Honnegowda as he was innocent, as such, he was shown as a witness. The Tribunal found that the statement of PW.3 was false, the reason being in the Articles of charge, containing the list of witnesses, names of four witnesses has been mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 4, but Honnegowda’s name has not been found in the list of witnesses. Nothing is stated as to why Honnegowda has not been examined as a witness when the entire case of the department is dependent on the statement of said Honnegowda that, he was instructed by

¶70

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

the applicant to receive amount of Rs.1,000/- on his behalf. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has observed that as the said Honnegowda has not been examined, there is no fair opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine him and this goes against the department’s version that the amount has been received through Honnegowda at the say of the applicant. Having found these flaws which are fatal to the enquiry and as the same has not been considered by the enquiry officer, the Tribunal has opined that the same amounts to perverse reading of evidence as well as materials, stating especially in page No.25 of its order - ‘ The enquiry officer wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to hold that the charge against the applicant herein has been proved. Perusing the materials, we are of the clear view that the finding recorded

¶73

by the enquiry officer is perverse in nature and it is not in accordance with the materials placed before the enquiry officer by way of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the applicant has made out a case ’. Having come to such conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application

¶74

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

and set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure A-17) and directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits, including financial benefits to the applicant to which he is legally entitled to, in a time bound manner. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the second respondent alone in this petition.

¶77

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶78

On a query, Sri.Vikas Rojipura, with all fairness submits that the State Government has not preferred any petition against the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶79

Though Sri.Joseph Anthony tried to persuade us that in judicial review to the Tribunal/Court cannot go through the evidence of the departmental enquiry, as the Tribunal/Court is not sitting in appeal on the enquiry and the order passed by the disciplinary authority. However, on the query of the Court regarding the locus standi of the

¶80

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

second respondent to challenge the order when the department has not called in question the order passed by the Tribunal and accepted the same. Sri.Anthony relying on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶83

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA VS. ISHWAR AND OTHERS in W.P.No.105477/2023, submits that the Lokayukta as a statutory entity playing a pivotal role in the prevention of maladministration and it functions as a watch dog of public administration in a Welfare State as ordained by the Constitution of India, has got all locus to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal even if the employer/competent authority for whatever reason does not choose to challenge the order of the Tribunal as the Lokayukta which has conducted the enquiry in its statutory obligation stated supra can very well challenge the order.

¶84

We have perused the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court about the locus standi of the Karnataka Lokayukta to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal has stated that

¶85

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the Lokayukta will have locus standi to knock at the doors of writ Court moreso when the competent authority for whatever reason does not choose to challenge the order of the Tribunal, despite intimation by the Lokayukta. However, at paragraph No.4.6 of its order, the Co-ordinate Bench has stated that it is not that in every case, locus standi needs to be conceded to Lokayukta as a matter of course. Answer to the issue of locus standi depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

¶88

It is clear from the observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the locus standi depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the same analogy is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, there is a failure on the part of the department even to prove the case on preponderance of probabilities, as

¶89

the person who has accepted the illegal gratification according to the department at the say of applicant neither been arrested and made as a party/accused No.2 in the criminal case nor has been cited as a witness in the

¶90

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:47030-DB WP No. 15722 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

departmental enquiry to substantiate their contention that he has accepted illegal gratification on behalf of the applicant on his say.

¶93

It is trite that in any corruption case, the demand and acceptance required to be proved even on preponderance of probabilities to bring home the guilt in the departmental enquiry and to bring the same within the definition of misconduct as contemplated under Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, supra. Given the technical background of the case in hand, in the absence of evidence, we find no reason to take a contrary view than the one taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is resultantly dismissed .

¶94

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶95

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶96

TKN

¶97

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Private Ltd.

Dr. Jagadeesha K G, Vs Major (Retd) Siddalingayya Hiremath

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited

Mr Ravindra Naik K Vs Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H E Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka