Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar a v

SRI PRASANNA KUMAR A V S/O LATE A.J VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO.5-1-4, SHAMANNA GARDEN, 1ST CROSS, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560030

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001

¶17

DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP. BY TIS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001

¶21

CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2-R4; SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE FOR C/R1)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No-870/2022 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.No-870/2022, ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

The present intra Court Appeal has been filed impugning

¶30

the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.870/2022 preferred by the respondent.

¶31

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

A complaint dated 30.07.2014 was lodged with the

¶35

Lokayuktha Police alleging that the petitioner while working as First Grade Revenue Inspector in Town Municipal Council, Mulbagilu, Kolar District had demanded Bribe of Rs.2,000/from the complainants for issuing the separate Khata in their name for the property measuring 22 1/2 ft X 30 ft each in the respect of joint khata of the property situated at Mulbagilu, Kolar District, Thotapalya Ward No.28, 'D' Division Mulbagilu Municipal Council property assessment No.2671/2475 measuring 55 X 60 sq. ft., back end side standing jointly in their names. On 30.07.2014, an acknowledgment was issued to the complainants in respect of their application for separate khata. However, when the complainant and his brother approached the petitioner, the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant and his brother and when they pleaded their inability to pay Rs.2,000/- he reduced the demand of bribe to Rs.1,000/-. The criminal case was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') and a trap was conducted by

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Lokayukta Police. The petitioner was caught accepting the bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant.

¶40

On the basis of the report of the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha along with the investigation papers and the report filed by the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Kolar District, the Suo-motu investigation was conducted against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lokayuktha Act').

¶41

A report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayuktha Act was forwarded to the State Government for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. After receipt of the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayuktha Act, the competent authority directed to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusted the enquiry to the Upa-lokayuktha. After the issuance of entrustment order, the enquiry officer was nominated who issued the charge sheet containing the following charge:

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

"That you DGO Sri. Prasanna Kumar A.V S/o Late A.G.Vijaykumar while working as First Grade Revenue Inspector in Town Municipal Council, Mulbagilu, Kolar District had demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- from Sri. T.V.Shankarappa S/o Late Chikkavenkatappa, Thotlapalya, Mulbagilu, Kolar District and on negotiation you had agreed to receive Rs.1,000/- to make separate khatha of property Asst.No.2671/2475 measuring 50 x 60 in his name and his brother Sri.C.Subramanyam at 22 1/2 x 30 each and on 30/07/2014 you again demanded and received tainted money of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant when lokayukta police sent him along with a shadow witness and therefore you the DGO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and therefore you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966. Hence, the charge."

¶46

The enquiry officer, after conducting the departmental enquiry, submitted the report dated 15.06.2020 finding the charge was proved. The Upa-Lokayukta recommended the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of compulsory retirement from service as a punishment.

¶47

The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation on the said enquiry report and proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. Vide order dated 16.08.2021, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

petitioner. The writ court, vide impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition and set aside the punishment order.

¶52

The learned Single Judge has held that in the absence of the basic document namely the application for separation of khata of the complainant and his brother was never produced during the departmental enquiry. In the absence of the basic document which led to the alleged demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, the charge would not get proved. It has been further held that Ex.P7, document relates merely to an application for issuance of khata extract and not for change or separation of khata. Therefore, treating this document as proof of request for khata change was erroneous.

¶53

The learned Single Judge has further held that presumption drawn by the enquiry officer that there was an application for khata extract, which would be issued only after khata change and that the complainant and his brother must have requested such change, was only a presumption which lacked evidentiary foundation.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The learned Single Judge has further held that the

¶58

enquiry suffered from a complete absence of evidence on the core allegation and despite this defect, the Upa-lokayukta had recommended punishment and the disciplinary authority without application of mind had accepted the recommendation. Therefore, the same was unsustainable.

¶59

Heard Mr. Venkatesh S Arbatti, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, Additional Government Advocate learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. K.N.Phaneendra, learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶60

Before the impugned punishment was passed, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the judgment dated 31.07.2020. The said judgment passed by the trial Court in Special Case (Corruption) No.1/2015 has been placed on record as Annexure-J.

¶61

We have perused the judgment and the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal charge was on merits and not on technical ground.

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar

¶65

the employer from exercising disciplinary jurisdiction. The acquittal of the petitioner in course of criminal trial does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to impose punishment of compulsory retirement on a finding of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of offence beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to presumption of innocence. Whereas, the purpose of disciplinary proceedings on the other hand is to enquire into allegations of misconduct against the delinquent employee. The charge in the disciplinary proceedings is required to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence applicable to criminal trial is distinct from those governing disciplinary enquiry.

¶66

It is also well settled that while the High Court exercises the jurisdiction of judicial review, it does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority and is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on the basis

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the

¶71

course of the disciplinary enquiry.

¶72

While the High Court exercises the jurisdiction

¶73

under judicial review, it is required to restrict its review to determine whether:

¶74

i. Rules of natural justice have been complied with;

¶75

ii. The finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;

¶76

iii. The statutory rules governing conduct of disciplinary enquiry were followed;

¶77

iv. The finding of disciplinary authority suffers from perversity;

¶78

v. The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

¶79

In the present case, the complainant as well as the

¶80

shadow witness have proved during the disciplinary enquiry, the recovery of tainted money from the petitioner and the circumstances of trap proceedings. On the date of bribe, the complainant placed the tainted amount on the table as

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

instructed by Lokayuktha Police, which was thereafter taken by the petitioner and kept in his pocket. This would clearly establish the acceptance pursuant to the demand.

¶85

The learned Single Judge has taken note of the finding of Trial Court in criminal case that in absence of an application for recording separate khata of the complainant and his brother, the foundation of the case was not proved. Such a finding was not required to be taken note of in the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was granted adequate opportunity and the findings were recorded based on the material available on record. Accordingly, the finding of the guilt of the petitioner was recorded.

¶86

The absence of an application for separate khata would not shake the foundation of demand and acceptance of bribe amount which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner in trap proceedings. The testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness during the disciplinary proceedings remains unshaken.

¶87

11 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:10828-DB WA No. 181 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

The High Court does not exercise the appellate

¶91

jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence, as held in following cases:

¶92

i. MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY Vs. LIFE

¶93

INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2017) 9 SCC 404 .

¶94

ii. S.R.TEWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 .

¶95

iii. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Vs. UMESH reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563 .

¶96

It cannot be said that there was no evidence on

¶97

record to support the finding of guilt. The demand and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- was clearly proved during the disciplinary proceedings. The trap proceedings were fully supported by the complainant and the shadow witness. Therefore, the interference by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the absence of the application filed by the complainant for a separate khata during the enquiry would disprove the case is unsustainable. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶98

ORDER

¶99