Sri Shivakumaraiah H N Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI SHIVAKUMARAIAH H.N. S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE UPA LOKAYUKTA-2 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-9 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:34493-DB WP No. 24785 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMAKUR TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-1)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 29/08/2022 IN NO.UPLOK-2/DE/973/2017/ARE-9 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 29/08/2022 IN NO.UPLOK2/DE/973/2017/ARE-9 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 30/03/2024 IN NO.THU.MA.PAA/SIBBANDI/C.R/18684/10-11/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3-the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-9, Karnataka Lokayukta, to respondent No.2-the Registrar, Upa-Lokayukta-2. Further, challenge has been made to the recommendations dated 29.08.2022 by respondent No.2-the Registrar, UpaLokayukta-2 and thereafter, the order dated 30.03.2024

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34493-DB WP No. 24785 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

passed by respondent No.4-the Commissioner, Mahanagara Palike, Tumakuru, for dismissing the

¶33

petitioner from service.

¶34

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.19200 of 2024 (GM-KLA) for the same reliefs. However, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayers.

¶35

In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, by order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.19200 of 2024 (GM-KLA), the present writ petition has been filed impugning the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, on recommendations of respondent No.2, an order to dismiss the petitioner from service was passed by respondent No.4.

¶36

The petitioner was working as a Second Division Assistant in Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike. One

¶37

Mr. Thameem Irson filed a complaint on 23.04.2015

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:34493-DB WP No. 24785 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

against the petitioner before the Lokayukta alleging that to transfer the katha into the name of his father, which was standing in the name of his grandfather, in respect of site No.15/6053 of Survey No.22/1B of Tumakuru Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Batavadi, the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/-. However after bargain, the bribe amount was settled for Rs.15,000/-.

¶42

The complainant gave Rs.5,000/- as a part of the bribe amount. The petitioner along with Sri Hanumantharaju (accused No.1) apprehended and the bribe amount was Rs.5,000/- was recovered. An F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner and Hanumantharaju. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and the private person, Hanumantharaju, in Special Case No.214 of 2016. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years

¶43

with fine of Rs.20,000/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)d read with Section

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:34493-DB WP No. 24785 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and both

¶48

the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶49

This Court, by order dated 27.10.2022, has suspended the sentences of the petitioner. It is evident that the conviction of the petitioner has not been stayed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 2022 and it is pending for final disposal. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in respect of the Charge of demanding and accepting the bribe amount for discharging the official duty. The petitioner was also proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings and the Disciplinary Authority found the Charges proved against the petitioner, for which, the impugned order of dismissal from the service has been challenged.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Criminal Appeal is pending before this Court against the order of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the petitioner, dismissing the petitioner from

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34493-DB WP No. 24785 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

service during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal against

¶54

the judgment and order of conviction and sentence would not be justified inasmuch as if the petitioner is acquitted by this Court, the whole basis for dismissal of the petitioner from service would go.

¶55

We have considered the submissions and find the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner totally untenable. The petitioner has not been dismissed only on the ground of his conviction in the criminal case, however, in the disciplinary enquiry, the Charges have been found proved against the petitioner of misconduct. The petitioner has participated in the

¶56

disciplinary proceedings, there is no infraction of the principles of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary enquiry, and therefore, we do not find the case requires any interference by this Court in the order of punishment

¶57

imposed on the petitioner for dismissal from service. Thus, we dismiss the writ petition, however, without costs.

¶58