Karnataka High Court
Sri S Mahadevaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.23484 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O LATE SUBBA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC
MADDUR, MANDYA - 571 428
RESIDING AT NO.5/60, VANGASETTY STREET
MADHUVANAHALLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 581 801
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FIED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.4626/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.4626/2022
AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 25.09.2023 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Application No.4626/2022, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner challenging Annexure-A27 dated 26.09.2022 of the first respondent inflicting the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are stated as follows:-
The petitioner a practicing advocate was appointed to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on 15.05.2006.
-
3 While working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mysore, one Sri.Ranjan Shetty lodged a complaint on 17.01.2007, with Lokayukta Police, alleging that the petitioner has demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification to argue a murder case. Based on the said complaint, the Lokayukta Police laid a trap on 18.01.2007, and registered an FIR in Crime No.1/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with the petitioner as the sole accused. During 2008, the Lokayukta Police filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.41/2008. The Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore framed the charge in Spl.C.C.No.41/2008 on 11.02.2010 and also examined the witnesses. The Trial Court by judgment dated 16.06.2011 has acquitted the petitioner honourably and held that there is absolutely no evidence to convict the petitioner and that there is no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
3. Later, on 26.07.2011 the second respondent sent an observation note stating identical allegations as alleged in
-
4 the earlier complaint i.e., Crime No.1/2007 filed against the petitioner, to which the petitioner had also sent an explanation on 19.09.2011. On 21.01.2012 a report was sent by the Upa Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 recommending to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Based on the report, the first respondent by an order dated 05.05.2012 entrusted the matter to third respondent, pursuant to which an enquiry officer was also nominated. Thereafter, on 26.10.2012, the Articles of Charge came to be issued against the petitioner. In the meantime, the case before the Lokayukta was transferred from ARE-8 to ARE-4. The enquiry officer had submitted the enquiry report on 16.08.2018 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the second respondent sent a recommendation dated 20.08.2018 to first respondent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. Based on the said recommendation, the Under Secretary has issued second
-
5 show cause notice on 15.09.2018 to which the petitioner has sent his reply on 17.10.2018.
4. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.4797/2019. Upon hearing the matter, the Tribunal initially directed to maintain status quo and later dismissed the application on 25.05.2022. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.11555/2022 which came to be dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to submit his reply statement within one week. The petitioner complied with this order and submitted a detailed reply on 11.07.2022.
5. In the meanwhile, the first respondent passed the impunged order dated 26.09.2022 against the petitioner by imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement as per Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The petitioner filed another application challenging this impugned order before the Tribunal in Application No.4626/2022. The matter was heard by the Tribunal and petitioner's application was
-
6 dismissed on 25.09.2023. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal passed in Application No.4626/2022, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta as well as the learned Additional Government advocate appearing for the official respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner was that he had accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant - Shri. Ranjan Shetty on 18.01.2007. On the very same charge, he had undergone a full-fledged trial which had ended in acquittal. The appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. It was thereafter that the charge memo was issued on 26.10.2012. It is submitted that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated by the long delay. It is further contended that the petitioner was set ex-parte in the enquiry after the change of the enquiry officer. The enquiry report dated 16.08.2018 also did not consider the contention of the petitioner that he had been honourably
-
7 acquitted of the same charge. Further, though the issue was raised before the disciplinary authority, the fact of Honourable Acquittal was not properly considered. It is contended that the imposition of the severe punishment of compulsory punishment was not commensurate with the charges alleged against the petitioner.
8. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has places reliance on the following citations:-
• RAM LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in Civil Appeal No. 7935/2023 (Paras-9, 13, 23, 25 and 27);
• Sri. B.R. SHASHIKANTH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 19.12.2023 in W.P.No.20439/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-
8, 12 to 18);
• RAGHAVENDRA KOPPA v. THE SECRETARY AND ANOTHER decided on 19.12.2023 in W.P.No.1297/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-10,13 and 16); • M. VENKATESH MURTHY v. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER decided on 19.12.2023 in W.P.No.17816/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-10, 18 and 22); • UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 (Paras-21 and
35);
-
8
• S. BHASKAR REDDY AND ANOTHER v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 (Paras-25 and 26); • P.V. RUDRAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 30.01.2024 in W.P.No.9642/2020 (S-KSAT) [Paras 3(a) to (c)]; • Sri. B.M. NAGESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 07.02.2024 in W.P.No.8494/2020 (S-KSAT) (Para-C);
• Sri. BHIMARAYA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on 10.02.2022 in W.P.No. 205561/2019 (GM-KLA) (Paras-20 and 21); and • STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, MYSORE v.
MAHADEVASWAMY decided on 27.10.2023 in CRL.APPEAL No. 117/2012 (Paras-15, 19 and 26).
9. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that the initiation of proceedings and the charge memo issued to the petitioner on 26.10.2012 were separately challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the challenge was rejected. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated. After the enquiry report was submitted, the second show- cause notice was issued on 15.09.2018, the same was also
-
9 again challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and such challenge was repelled. It is only thereafter that the report was considered and the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. It is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot raise the ground of delay at this stage of the proceedings since that was the specific ground on which he had challenged the entrustment of proceedings to the Lokayukta and the charge memo issued in the year 2012 un-successfully before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.
10. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta produced the files of the enquiry which shows that even after the change of the Enquiry Officer on 03.08.2016, the petitioner was represented by his counsel in the enquiry and had been given full opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
11. We have considered the contentions advanced. It was after the acquittal in the criminal case by the judgment dated 16.06.2011 that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner. Therefore, the fact of
-
10 acquittal in the criminal case was perfectly known to the Government as well as the enquiry officer, who had conducted the proceedings. It is true that the charges in the criminal case and in the enquiry proceedings were identical. The witnesses were also the same. However, we notice from the judgment of the Trial Court that the witnesses had been subjected to detailed cross-examination in the trial. However, in the enquiry, it is clear that in spite of ample opportunity having been provided, the petitioner chose not to cross-examine PWs.2 and 3. The testimony of PWs.2 and 3 therefore stood uncontroverted before the enquiry officer.
12. The enquiry officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the charges alleged against the petitioner stood proved. It is trite law that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and in disciplinary proceedings are entirely different. The petitioner cannot rely totally on the acquittal in the criminal trial and ought to have taken steps to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses in the enquiry.
-
11
13. Having considered the contentions advanced and the findings of the Tribunal, we are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are distinct in their nature and essence. The disciplinary proceedings have to be conducted on the basis of the materials is placed in the enquiry.
14. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings themselves have been initiated only after the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 16.06.2011. The acquittal stands confirmed in the appeal as well and has thus become final. However, on the very same charges, the respondents found it fit to initiate a disciplinary enquiry as against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry by filing an application before the Tribunal on the ground that the initiation of enquiry after the acquittal is bad in law as also on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. The Tribunal considered the said contentions and by order dated 25.05.2022 in Application No.4797/2019 rejected the application. Though the said order was taken up before this
-
12 Court in W.P.No.11555/2022, the same also stood rejected. Thereafter, when the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, again, an application was filed as Application No.4797/2019. The Tribunal initially directed maintenance of status quo but by judgment dated 25.05.2022 the application was dismissed after considering the contentions advanced. The petitioner had challenged this order in W.P.No.11555/2022. In the said writ petition also, the contentions were considered on merits and the writ petition was dismissed directing the petitioner to submit his reply statement to the second show-cause notice. It is true that this Court as well as the Tribunal had held that all the contentions could be considered in case the enquiry ends with the imposition of a penalty as against the petitioner.
15. Having considered the contentions advanced and having given our anxious consideration to the materials on record and the findings of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has considered the contentions raised by the applicant on merits. The relevant aspects of the matter have been properly considered by the
-
13 Tribunal in its order. We find that there is no patent error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, which would justify interference by this Court. We are of the opinion that the relevant aspects of the matter have been properly considered by the Tribunal in its order.
16. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*