Sri.K.C Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. G S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY K S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.1355/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION N0.1355/2023 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURED-B) AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) in Application No.1355/2023, whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty of permanent withholding of 40% of petitioner’s pension.

¶34

Brief facts of the case:

¶35

The petitioner was working as an Inspector in the Department of Legal Metrology of Sirsi Sub-Division during the year 2012. It is stated that, one Vishwanath Narayan Desai had filed a complaint on 03.12.2012 before the second respondent stating that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification, in the form of a mobile handset, to do an official favour. Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.08/2012 on 03.12.2012. In the meantime, an enquiry was also held by the second respondent. The petitioner had offered his explanation to the second respondent and the second respondent, on 31.03.2021, made a

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

recommendation to impose penalty of compulsory retirement from service and withholding 40% of pension permanently.

¶39

2(i) Thereafter, the first respondent issued a second show-cause notice asking for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 17.07.2021. In the meantime, the petitioner had attained superannuation on 31.01.2022 and got retired from the service. The first respondent, on 01.10.2022, imposed a penalty of withholding 40% of pension permanently. It was communicated to the petitioner on 18.01.2023.

¶40

2(ii) As against the said order, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal, by filing an Application No.1355/2023 and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.06.2024, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶41

Heard Sri Satish K., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S. Aruna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind; hence, the same should be set aside.

¶45

4(i) It is further contended that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was bad in the eyes of law, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his reply. It is further contended that, mere recovery of a mobile handset could not have been the reason to hold that the charge proved against the petitioner.

¶46

4(ii) It is further contended that the admissions made by PWs.1 and 2 in the enquiry have been overlooked by the Enquiry Officer. In fact, P.W.2 has admitted in the enquiry that the mobile handset was given to verify the MRP and also the manufacturing date. Such being the case, there was no question of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was not proved in the enquiry, imposing a penalty of withholding 40% of pension permanently is contrary to the evidence on record and arbitrary. Therefore, the impugned order passed by

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the Tribunal should be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶50

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Government on the recommendation made by the second respondent. He further submitted that the disciplinary enquiry is held and considered on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and it is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. Making such submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition.

¶51

Similarly, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also justified the order passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has correctly held

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

that the scope of judicial review of an enquiry report is very limited and that the Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, re-appreciation of the evidence and material on record is impermissible.

¶57

Be that as it may, the petitioner had put in considerable length of service without having any antecedents. No doubt, the disciplinary enquiry is different from criminal prosecution. The Enquiry Officer, on going through both oral and documentary evidence on record, opined that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. The second respondent recommended the first respondent to impose a penalty of withholding 40% of pension permanently, and it was acted upon.

¶58

Having considered the length of service and also the family background of the petitioner, without adverting to the merit of the case, we are of the considered opinion that imposing a penalty of withholding 25% of the pension permanently would be appropriate.

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:722-DB WP No. 19440 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Accordingly, we pass the following:-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i) The Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.

¶65

ii) The order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, dismissing Application No.1355/2023, is hereby modified to the extent that, instead of imposing a penalty of withholding 40% of the pension permanently, it is ordered that the same be reduced to 25% permanently.

¶66

iii) No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶68

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶69

Bss

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri.K.C Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.C Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gowramma

Nti Housing Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Smt.B.T.Gunavathi

Sri Ganga Muthaiah Vs State of Karnataka

State Bank of India Vs Mr Kuruva Somesh

Mr Nishant Kashyap Vs Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission

Sri Chandregowda M Vs Sri S Dyavegowda