Sri R Nagaraj Vs the Director

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2012 IN NO.KaViPraNiNi/B21/2822/2002-03 AND THE ORDER

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶18

DATED 29.08.2013 IN NO.KaViPraNiNi/B21/2822/2002-03 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES-D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged an Order bearing No.PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©21/2822/2002-03, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 11.09.2012

¶23

passed by the Disciplinary Authority/respondent No.1 imposing penalty of withholding 50% of his pension. The petitioner has also challenged an Order bearing No.PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©21/2822/2002-03, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 29.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 by

¶24

which his review petition against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was rejected.

¶25

When the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL' for short), Doddabelavangala Sub-division, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, a complaint was lodged by Mr. M. Jagadish before the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bangalore Division on 15.05.2002 alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.3,500/- to submit a

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶27

report for servicing an electrical installation in his farm house situate at Honnagatta village, Doddaballapura Taluk. On the basis of the complaint, the Lokayukta Police set a trap on 16.05.2002, which was successful. The Lokayukta Police then registered Crime No.4/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act'). The respondent - KPTCL in exercise of its power under Regulation 14A(1)(a)(i) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1987') entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta. The Upalokayukta nominated the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 to frame charges and to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, article of charge was framed against the petitioner and evidence of PWs.1 to 5 was recorded and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O Nos.1 to 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.07.2011 that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The report was placed before the Upalokayukta for further action. The Upalokayukta on 05.08.2011 recommended to the respondent No.1 to impose penalty as provided under

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶29

Regulation 171 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1996 and recommended withholding of 50% of the pension of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 based on the recommendation of the Upalokayukta imposed a penalty of withholding 50% of the pension of the petitioner as provided under Regulation 171 of the aforesaid Regulations vide order dated 11.09.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner sought review before respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 also rejected the review in terms of the order dated 29.08.2013.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Special Case No.38/2004 that was lodged by the Lokayukta Police ended in an acquittal by virtue of the judgment dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the same was challenged by the State represented by the Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police, before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.237/2010 which was dismissed on 21.06.2012. He contends that the Criminal Court had specifically recorded a finding that

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶33

as on the date when the alleged trap was laid, there was no pending work concerning the complainant with the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that this finding was based on evidence and the respondent No.1 did not consider this crucial aspect of the matter. He also contends that the inward Register (page No.83 at Ex.P8) maintained regarding the work turned out by the petitioner disclosed that as on 09.05.2002, the application of the complainant received on 08.05.2002 by the petitioner for servicing the installation was already processed and forwarded. He contends that there was no demand from the petitioner for bribe as alleged by the complainant and that the trap dated 16.05.2002 was not in respect of any demand made by the petitioner. He contends that the complainant had raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner and that on 16.05.2002, the complainant came to the office where the petitioner worked and handed him over a sum of Rs.2,000/-. He further contended that a shadow witness was also examined during the domestic enquiry as PW.1. He deposed that he was not able to hear the conversation between the petitioner and PW.2/complainant relating to the alleged demand of bribe. He, therefore, contends that there is no credible evidence on record to prove the charge

¶34

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶35

framed against the petitioner. He contends that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority considered this relevant fact before imposing punishment of withholding 50% of the pension of the petitioner.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner had admitted the receipt of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant but had contended that it was towards re-payment of a loan that the complainant had raised from the petitioner. She contends that the petitioner did not produce any proof of the said claim before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, she contends that the Enquiry Officer was justified in holding that the charge against the petitioner of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/- was justified. She contends that the application of the complainant for servicing an electrical installation was in fact handled by the petitioner and therefore, there is sufficient proof to show that the petitioner had made a demand for processing the application of the complainant. She contends that mere acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case does not vitiate the departmental proceedings unless the petitioner establishes that the evidence adduced before the Criminal Court and evidence before the domestic enquiry were

¶37

7 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶39

the same. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon the following judgments:

¶40

1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Represented by Managing Director (Administration and HR) v. C. Nagaraju and another [(2019) 10 SCC 367];

¶41

2. Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [Civil Appeal No…/2014 arising out of [S.L.P (Civil) No.23631/2008];

¶42

3. State of Karnataka and Another v. Umesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 345]; and

¶43

4. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 265]

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted

¶45

the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶46

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶47

The charge against the petitioner was that while he was working as a Junior Engineer in KPTCL at Doddabelavangala, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, on 16.05.2002, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/as illegal gratification from the complainant/Mr. Jagadish, an

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶49

electrical contractor for submitting report after inspecting the spot. The complainant was examined as PW.2 while a shadow witness was examined as PW.1 and a mahazar witness was examined as PW.3 while PWs.4 and 5 were the Investigating Officers who investigated the criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner took up a defence that the complainant had raised loan of Rs.10,000/- from him and that on 16.05.2002, he had visited the office of the petitioner to hand over portion of the loan. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner had admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.2,000/from the complainant on 16.05.2002 and that while receiving the said amount, the petitioner was caught by the Lokayukta Police. PW.1, the shadow witness deposed that he had seen the PW.2 handing over cash of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner, though he stated that he was not able to hear the conversation between PW.2 and the petitioner. However, the fact remains that PW.1 had seen the petitioner receiving a sum of Rs.2,000/- from PW.2. The fact that an application was filed by PW.2 on 03.05.2002 for an inspection report to service the electrical installation in his farm house and that the same was considered by the petitioner is not in dispute as the petitioner

¶50

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶51

himself claimed that by 09.05.2002, the file relating to the complainant was already processed and despatched. However, nothing was placed on record before the Enquiry Officer to establish that the electrical installation of the complainant was serviced before the trap was laid by Lokayukta Police on 16.05.2002. There is also nothing on record to show that the installation of the complainant was serviced before 16.05.2002. If the petitioner had contended that the complainant was returning the loan that he had raised, the petitioner must have produced some acceptable evidence before the Enquiry Officer. However, the petitioner made no effort in that regard. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry officer that the evidence on record pointed to the fact that the petitioner had demanded and collected bribe of Rs.2,000/- for processing the application filed by the complainant, was probable and therefore, the Enquiry Officer was justified in holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, mere acquittal of the petitioner in Special Case No.38/2004 by the Criminal Court would not result in closure of the departmental proceedings unless the petitioner proved that the evidence relied upon in the criminal case was

¶52

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶53

similar to the one relied upon in the domestic enquiry. The petitioner has failed to establish the said fact also. No effort was made by the petitioner either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority to establish the said fact. Corruption and corrupt officers are a bane in any civilised Society and they undermine the rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of India. The law relating to prevention of corruption has lost its teeth as the perpetrators keep on innovating ways and means to outwit the long arm of law and many a time are successful at it. Added to this is the quagmire created by a maze of judicial pronouncements leaving the prosecuting agency at sea as to what and how things have to be complied for an effective prosecution. In this melee of what is right and wrong, the perpetrators walk out of the clutches of law unscathed. Experience tells us that the long arm of law is no longer long enough to rein in the ubiquitous venal officials. Though the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has some shortcomings, yet that seems to be the last bastion holding the fort against dishonest officials. The Additional Registrar Enquiries-4 in the office of the Lokayukta has done a commendable job in conducting the enquiry and assessing it

¶54

11 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:12398 WP No. 54755 of 2013

¶56

threadbare and submitting a report holding that the charges were proved. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved is unexceptionable.

¶57

The Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer had issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause against acceptance of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had submitted his reply which was considered and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the same, held that imposition of penalty of withholding 50% of the pension of the petitioner would be ideal punishment. Any proved act of corruption demeaning the rights of citizens has to be dealt with an iron hand. The softer the punishment, greater would be the resolve of the perpetrator to relapse into such acts. The punishment should therefore not only be punitive but also deterrent to other officials and the Disciplinary Authority being the employer was thoroughly justified in imposing the punishment of withholding 50% of pension on the petitioner, which will sting him every month when he receives his reduced pension. The Reviewing Authority has also rightly upheld the

¶58