Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri K Nagaraju

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.4348/2023, AS PER ANNEXURE-C; b) AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION AND c) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Articles-226 and

¶30

227 of the Constitution of India, by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, calling in question the order dated 11.07.2024, in Application

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

No.4348/2023, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short). By this order dated 11.07.2024, the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the contesting first respondent, setting aside the order impugned dated 18.04.2022, vide Annexure-C, passed by the petitioner. Further, directing the respondentGovernment to pay all consequential benefits including financial benefits to the applicant to which he is legally entitled to, in a time bound manner.

¶34

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

¶35

Shorn of details, facts germane to leading to filing of the present petition are as under:

¶36

One Sri.K.T.Gurumurthy lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that the applicant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- in connection with installing of water pipelines to the house of Moganna. The Lokayukta Police registered a

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Crime No.11/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) read with Section-13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). A trap was conducted, during which a sum of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Pursuant to the investigation, Lokayukta submitted a report under Section–12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘1984 Act’ for short) recommending departmental enquiry against the applicant and seeking entrustment of the same. The Government acting under Section–12(4) of the Act 1984 entrusted the enquiry under Rule-14 of Karnataka Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1957 (‘CCA Rules’ for short). Based on the entrustment, the Additional Registrar Enquiry-III was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer issued the articles of charges on 19.12.2013 against the applicant. In the meanwhile, the Lokayukta Police having completed investigation filed charge-sheet before the Sessions Court which came to be

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

numbered as Special Case No.11/2013. The Sessions Court after conducting full fledged trial vide judgment dated 07.08.2020 acquitted the applicant of the offences charged, on the premise that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount from the complainant.

¶43

In the enquiry, the complainant was examined as PW-1, shadow witness as PW-2 and another independent witness as PW-3 who was waiting outside the office of the applicant, when the complainant and shadow witness entered the chamber of the applicant. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has laid the charge-sheet against the applicant in the criminal case. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the applicant was proved and submitted his report to Upa-Lokayukta on 22.04.2021.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Pursuant to the submission of the report,

¶47

the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta on 23.04.2021 forwarded the same to the Government with a recommendation to impose penalty of ‘permanently withholding 50% of pension payable to the applicant’. The Government pursuant to receipt of enquiry report along with recommendation issued second show-cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry Officer seeking explanation from the applicant. The applicant sent his reply on 09.09.2021. Not satisfied with the reply, the Government passed an order imposing penalty of permanently withholding 50% of pension payable to the applicant vide order dated 18.04.2022.

¶48

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government, the applicant preferred application before the Tribunal in Application No.4348/2023. Upon service of notice, the respondent-State as well as the petitioner, filed their respective statement of objections. The petitioner has taken a specific contention that the application itself is not

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

maintainable as there is no merit in the application and the conduct of the applicant disentitles him from seeking any relief. The misconduct on the part of the applicant seriously affects the State Administration and also the rights of the members of the public. Further, has taken a specific contention that the judicial review in respect of departmental enquiry is very limited, as the Tribunal / Court, cannot sit as an Appellate Court on the enquiry report and subscribe its own views unless and until it is shown that the findings in the enquiry is perverse and not on the basis of the material placed before it, i.e., without any evidence.

¶52

The Tribunal having heard the parties before it, was of the opinion that the complainant was not the person who was entrusted with the work. Indeed it was Moganna who was entrusted with the work and the cheque was required to be paid in the

¶53

name of Moganna. The complainant was a SubContractor so also the complainant who is examined

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

as PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the case

¶57

before the Enquiry Officer. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted to the fact that his wife was a Grama Panchayat Member. Further, that he has unequivocally admitted to the suggestion as true that the DGO has not demanded any money from him and he has given a false evidence against him to give trouble to him.

¶58

Further, the Tribunal has observed that PW-1 in the cross-examination to the suggestion by the defense, pleaded ignorance regarding the name of the person who took the amount which was placed on the table by him before the applicant and put the same in the shirt pocket of the applicant. So also, pleaded ignorance regarding explanation of the DGO. Further, admitted that the complaint given by him to

¶59

the Lokayukta was written by some other person. In his cross-examination PW-1 has clearly admitted that the contents of the Mahazar at Exhibit-P2 was not

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

read over to him and he has also not read the

¶63

contents before signing the same.

¶64

The Tribunal after going through

¶65

considered the evidence of PW-4 - the Investigating Officer, has observed that in the cross-examination the said witness deposed that he has not obtained any documents to show that the complainant was working as a Labourer/Contractor within the jurisdiction of Grama Panachayat. Further he has clearly admitted to the suggestion that the contract work was given to Sri.Moganna. He has further deposed that so far as the contract between the complainant and Moganna, he has not obtained any documents. However, he denied suggestion that the complainant was not at all the sub-contractor. He has further admitted the suggestion that the Cheque from Grama Panchayat was to be issued in the name of Moganna. The Tribunal after considering the entire material was of the opinion that the findings of the

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Disciplinary Authority regarding demand by the applicant for issuing the Cheque to Gurumurthy and accepting the bribe amount is totally improbable and unnatural. The Tribunal was of the opinion that mere recovery of the amount from the possession of the applicant is not sufficient to jump to the conclusion that there was a demand and acceptance of the bribe is proved, unless there is specific evidence that there is demand and acceptance of the bribe by the applicant.

¶69

The Tribunal was of the opinion that, the

¶70

Enquiry Officer has not at all examined the crossexamination of the witnesses, however, only relied on the examination-in-chief, this has resulted in perverse finding i.e., non-consideration of materials and applying the material against the probabilities. Resultantly, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to hold that the charges are

¶71

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

proved against the applicant. Accordingly, held that the applicant has made out a case, and allowed the application, directing the Government to pay all consequential including financial benefits to the applicants within a time bound manner. It is this order passed by the Tribunal which is called in question in this petition on hand.

¶74

Heard Sri. Mallikarjun Reddy K.S.,

¶75

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶76

12. Sri.Mallikarjun K.S., with all vehemence

¶77

submitted that mere acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a reason to set-aside and interfere with the departmental enquiry. The standard of proof with respect to the criminal case registered are beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the departmental enquiry, it is only based on preponderance of probabilities. Indeed in the enquiry, the allegations

¶78

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

made against the applicant were in terms of preponderance of probabilities.

¶81

He stating that, the Tribunal was of the

¶82

opinion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse in nature. In the departmental enquiry the standard of proof required is just preponderance of probabilities, but the way in which the Tribunal has considered the case, amounts otherwise, i.e., as required in the criminal case. The Complainant - PW-1 though turned hostile, has stated in his examination-in-chief regarding the demand and payment at an earlier point of time.

¶83

He further asserts that, there was a trap

¶84

and the applicant was caught red-handed and the amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant. PW-2 to 4 supported the case. PW-2 has stated that there is a demand and acceptance by the applicant. A mere discrepancy regarding mode of payment will not take away the entire case. The

¶85

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Investigating Officer has completely supported the case. The Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects of the matter proved in the Departmental enquiry. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is against the principles of law laid down in catena of Rulings by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to judicial review, standard of proof. The order impugned requires to be set-aside and the application be dismissed confirming the order passed by the authorities.

¶88

Sri.Vikas Rojipura supports the arguments advanced by Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy.

¶89

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what emerges from the case on hand is that the complainant is admittedly (a) husband of member of Grama Panchayat Member, (b) the work was not entrusted with the complainant, rather it was entrusted to Moganna, (c) the Cheque, if any, is to be issued in the name of Moganna. It is very germane to

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

mention here that the Tribunal while subscribing its reasons for allowing the application particularly at page Nos.13 and 14, stated regarding the deposition of PW-1 i.e., Gurumurthy - complainant. For easy reference, we reproduce the same:

¶94

“Looking to the enquiry officer's report which is dated 22.04.2021, copy of which is produced vide Annexure-A8. On the side of disciplinary authority 4 witnesses were examined as Pws-1 to 4 and documents Ex.P1 to 13 got marked. On the side of the defence the applicant herein has been examined as DW-1 and no documents got marked. Looking to the oral evidence of this complainant PW-1Gurumurthy is concerned, he turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution so far as the relevant facts regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the applicant herein from the complainant. Therefore, at the request of the presenting officer this witness was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the presenting officer.

¶95

Looking to the cross-examination by the presenting officer to this Pw-1 complainant even in the crossexamination nothing has been elicited from his mouth so has to believe the case of the disciplinary

¶96

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

authority regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.

¶99

When the cross-examined by the defence counsel he deposed that he does not know the name of the person who took the amount which was placed on the table by him and then put that amount in the shirt pocket of the DGO and so also, he does know whether police officer dictated explanation of the DGO to him and got written that explanation or not. He admitted the suggestion as true that the complaint given by him to the Lokayukta was written by some other person. He also admitted another suggestion as true that contents of the mahazar Ex.P2 was not read over to him and he has also read the contents before signing the same. He admitted the suggestion as true that DGO has not demanded money from him and he has given false evidence against him to give trouble to him.”

¶100

17. Since the shadow complainant on whose

¶101

complaint the entire criminal law is set into motion so also the departmental enquiry, turned hostile and not supported the case, and even gone to the extent of saying that there was no demand of money by the applicant and he has given false evidence against him

¶102

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

only to give cause trouble to him. This clearly shows

¶105

that the case is only to avenge vengeance against the applicant by the complainant. Even if the principle of preponderance of probabilities is applied, the allegations made against the applicant are not proved in view of hostility of PW-1, wherein he has admitted regarding the fact that there is no demand of money.

¶106

That apart, the Investigation Officer who

¶107

has been examined as PW-4, clearly admitted that he has not obtained any document to show that there is any contract between the complainant and Moganna, so as to entitle him to seek for issuance of cheque in his favour which has resulted in demand as alleged, against the applicant. The fact remains that the wife of the complainant is the member of Grama Panchayat. As per defence, it is indeed the complainant who is pressurizing the applicant by bringing unnecessary influence for release of cheque amount, when denied resulted in false complaint

¶108

17 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

against him. The entire scenario made out reeks malafides. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider these important aspects of the matter which has resulted in perverse findings.

¶112

No doubt, it is trite that the Courts cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer as an Appellate Authority, but at the same time the power of the Court does not seize to interfere when there seems to be non-application of mind and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Hon’ble Apex Court in umpteen number of cases has held that in the judicial review Court very well can interfere with the conclusions reached therein, if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by any ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the Superior Authority.

¶113

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

As stated above, the complainant has

¶116

unequivocally admitted the fact that there is no demand by the applicant and he has given false evidence against him to cause trouble to him. The Enquiry Officer failed to take cognizance of the cross-examination of PW-1 as well as PW-4. However, swayed by the evidence deposed in the examinationin-chief, which in the opinion of the Tribunal is perverse, holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the applicant, caused miscarriage of justice.

¶117

The Tribunal after going through the entire material was of the opinion that the entire case suffers from absence of material evidence. In the said circumstances, as well as in the presence of the fact that the complainant is not the person to whom the work was entrusted and it is to one Moganna to whom the Cheque was to be issued, held that, the demand by the applicant and payment of amount by the complainant towards the same is highly

¶118

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:40307-DB WP No. 33930 of 2024

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

improbable and unnatural and cannot be

¶121

countenanced.

¶122

We have considered the entire material

¶123

placed before us in the writ petition, so also gone through the entire order passed by the Tribunal. In the light of foregoing reasons, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is sans merits and resultantly dismissed.

¶124

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶125

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶126

JJ

¶127

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Sri K Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Sri K Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Murtuzasab Vs the State of Karnataka

The Union of India Vs Shri Venugopal K C

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs State of Karnataka

Tanveer D Alias Tanveer Ahamed Vs Gopala

Sri.Hanumanth.K.Bhajantri, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prakash S Vs State of Karnataka