Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri K N M Sreekanta Swamy on 22 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
W.A. NO.3513 OF 2011 (S-RES)
IN
W.P. NO.35475 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560009.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. K.N.M. SREEKANTA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE N.M. BASAIAH
R/AT. K.N.M. NANDEESWARA
NO.380, 19TH G MAIN
1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-10.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. Y.T. ABHINAY, ADV., FOR
MR. B.C. RAJEEVA, ADV.,)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
2
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.35475/2002
(S-RES) DATED 03.03.2011.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act' for short) the appellant viz., Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) has assailed
the validity of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by
learned single judge, by which writ petition preferred by
the respondent has been allowed and the order dated
18.06.2002 by which the respondent was compulsorily
retired has been quashed and a direction has been
issued that he shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge
to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which
are stated hereinafter.
2. The respondent was employed as an
Assistant Executive Engineer in the establishment of the
Corporation and at the relevant time was posted in
Bellary District. He was trapped for accepting the bribe
of Rs.1,000/- during 1994. The respondent was charged
for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section with
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. However, the respondent was
acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case on the ground
that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt.
Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal appeal against
the judgment of acquittal, which was also dismissed on
19.03.1999.
3. After dismissal of the criminal appeal, a
departmental enquiry was initiated by the appellant and
a charge sheet was issued to the respondent containing
the following two charges:
Charge No.1: You, ABE - Sri.KNM
Sreekantaswamy, While working as Asst.
Executive Engineer, KEB, Bellary Rural, on
27.07.1994, demanded the complainant -
Sri.H.Sambashiva, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o
Hariginadoni Village, Taluk and District Bellary,
to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- for supply of
electrical energy to the IP set of borewell in
Sy.No.143 of the same village. Thereby, you
have failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and acted in a manner of
unbecoming and a Board Employee in violation
of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees
(Conduct) Regulation, 1988.
Charge No.2: In continuation of the above
demand, you, ABE, demanded and accepted
the bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the above named
complainant on 28.07.1994 in order to do the
above official work. Thereby, you have failed to
maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty
and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Board
Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of
KEB Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1988.
4. The departmental enquiry was conducted
through Lokayukt who in turn delegated the enquiry to
the Deputy Registrar Enquiry-II, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore. In the aforesaid enquiry, both the charges
leveled against the respondent were found to be proved.
On the basis of the enquiry report dated 30.07.2001,
the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of
compulsory retirement on the respondent vide order
dated 18.06.2002. The aforesaid order was subject
matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge who
by an order dated 03.03.2011, inter alia held that since,
the complainant was not consistent in his statement
before the criminal court and in the domestic enquiry,
by itself is a sufficient ground to hold that the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer were bad in law. The
order dated 18.06.2002 imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement was quashed and the respondent
was held entitled to all the emoluments. In the aforesaid
factual background, the respondent has approached this
court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that an acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not take
away the right of the employer to initiate or continue a
departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that
the learned Single Judge grossly erred in interfering with
the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and ought to
have appreciated that judicial review is not an appeal
from a decision but a review of the manner in which
decision is made.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that there was inconsistency in
the statements made by the complainant before the
criminal court and in the domestic enquiry, therefore,
the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer were bad in law.
It is submitted that the respondent has now retired and
is receiving the full pension.
7. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. Before proceeding further, we may refer to the
well settled principles with regard to scope of judicial
review of interference with the disciplinary proceeding.
In 'STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. VS. S.SREE
RAMA RAO', AIR 1963 SC 1723 it was held that high
court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India does not sit as a court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry. It is only concerned to determine
whether the enquiry held by an authority competent in
that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice have
been followed. It has also been held that where there is
some evidence which the authority entrusted with the
duty of holding an enquiry has accepted and which may
support the conclusion. It is not the function of the high
court to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. Similar view was
reiterated in 'B.C.CHATURVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS.', (1995) 6 SCC 749. In 'HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR VS. SHASHIKANTH S. PATIL AND
ANOTHER', (2000) 1 SCC 416, it was held that
interference with the decision of the departmental
authorities is permitted if such authority has held the
proceedings in violation of the principles of natural
justice or in violation of statutory regulations providing
the mode of departmental enquiry. [Also See: PRAVIN
KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2020) 9 SCC 471].
8. In 'STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND
JAIPUR VS. NEMICHAND NALWAYA', (2011) 4 SCC
584, it has been held that no interference shall be made
in a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that another
view is possible on the basis of material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the
findings are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of evidence and reliable nature of evidence
will not be a ground for interfering with the findings. In
'STATE OF BIHAR VS. PHULPARI', (2020) 2 SCC
130, it has been held that standard of proof in the
criminal proceeding and the departmental enquiry is
different. In criminal case, the standard of proof is
beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental
enquiry the charges have to be proved on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities.
9. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled
principles, the facts of the case in hand may be
examined. From perusal of the enquiry report dated
31.07.2007, it is evident that before the enquiry officer,
three witnesses were examined on behalf of the
appellant viz., the complainant, accompanying witness
and investigating officer and 6 documents were marked
viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondent had examined
himself and two witnesses and got marked 7 documents
as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. The enquiry officer has placed
reliance on the testimony of the investigating officer as
well as the accompanying witness and has held that
amount offered by the complainant to the respondent
was recovered in the presence of panchas. On the basis
of the meticulous appreciation of the evidence adduced
before the enquiry officer, enquiry officer has recorded a
finding that both the charges against the respondent
were proved. However, the learned Single Judge has
quashed the order of compulsory retirement only on the
following ground:
The complainant note being consistent
in his statements before the criminal court
and at the domestic enquiry is sufficient
ground for this court to hold that the findings
are bad in law.
10. Thus, in a cryptic manner, the learned Single
Judge has held that the findings recorded by the enquiry
officer are bad in law. The learned Single Judge has
neither referred to the evidence which was adduced
before the enquiry officer nor has recorded a finding that
the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are
perverse. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in
excess of jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge has
acted as an appellate authority while exercising the
powers of judicial review. The impugned order therefore
cannot be sustained in the eye of law, it is hereby
quashed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
