The State Of Karnataka vs Sri K Thimappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 7857 Kant

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
                         AND

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
     WRIT PETITION NO.12184 OF 2019 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA, 1ST FLOOR,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                       ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP)

AND:

1.     SRI. K.THIMAPPA
       S/O. LATE KONERAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT NO.10, 7TH CROSS,
       2ND MAIN ROAD,
       AMARAJYOTHINAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 040.

2.     THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BENGALURU - 560 001,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
                                2




3.      THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF
        ENQUIRES-3
        KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
        M.S.BUILDING,
        DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
        BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1,)
    SMT. MANJULA.D., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 )


        THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO               CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED      BY     THE      HON'BLE     STATE    KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE          TRIBUNAL       AT   BENGALURU       IN
APPLICATION       NO.2989/2014     DATED    08.03.2018   VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.


        THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, P.N DESAI J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the impugned

order passed in Application No.2989/2014 dated

08.03.2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short herein referred to as

'tribunal') which is at Annexure-A.

2. The brief case which has given rise for

consideration of this writ petition are that respondent

No.1 herein was working as Deputy Director of

Department of Mines and Geology. He had joined the

Department of Geology in the year 1987. There was a

trap conducted by the Lokayuktha police against

respondent No.1. On the basis of the same, a case in

Special Case No.20/2007 came to be registered. The

trial court convicted respondent No.1 for the offences

under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Being aggrieved by the said judgment,

respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal

No.1184/2011 to High Court. This court allowed the

appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the trial court. In the

meantime, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against

respondent No.1 by issuing charge memo and after

enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order

dismissing respondent No.1 from service. Against the

said order respondent No.1 has preferred Application

No.2989/2014 before the Tribunal. The State has

resisted the same and the tribunal having heard the

parties, allowed the application preferred by

respondent No.1 in-part. Being aggrieved by the same,

the State has preferred the present petition.

3. We have heard Sri. B.Rajendraprasad,

learned HCGP for petitioner, Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

Smt. Manjula D, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2

and 3 and perused the impugned order and also

memorandum of writ petition.

4. Learned HCGP for petitioner/State argued

that the order passed by the tribunal is erroneous.

Acquittal of respondent No.1 in the criminal appeal

preferred before the High Court, is not a ground to

modify the order of punishment from one of dismissal

to compulsory retirement. The two proceedings are

independent and different and also the enquiry officer

has in-detail considered the evidence and held that the

charges leveled against respondent No.1 are proved.

Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

5. Respondent No.1 joined the Department of

Geology in the year 1987. It is alleged that one

Sri. Najeeb Ahmed, owner of A.N.F Granite approached

respondent No.1 to grant permit to transport granites

from his quarry. It is alleged that on 13.09.2005,

respondent No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- to be

given to him at 05:30 p.m. at Mysore Railway Station

in the matter of issuance of Mineral dispatch permit in

respect of a quarry situated in the land bearing

Sy.No.247 of Katthalavadi Village, Chamarajanagar

Taluk. As the complainant - Sri. Najeeb Ahmed was not

willing to pay the bribe to respondent No.1, he gave

complaint to the Karnataka Lokayukta. On the basis of

alleged trap and complaint, an enquiry was instituted

against respondent No.1.

6. It is contended that the articles of charges

was served on respondent No.1 on 01.10.2008. A

reply was submitted by respondent No.1 by way of

written statement on 19.02.2009. Respondent No.1

thereafter on conclusion of arguments of prosecution,

submitted his written arguments on 11.04.2011.

Thereafter, after lapse of more than two years, from

the submission of written arguments by the respondent

No.1, the State has furnished the enquiry report to

respondent No.1 on 30.09.2011 and recommendation

made on 06.02.2012 vide letter dated 25.04.2013.

The order of dismissal came to be passed on

15.04.2014, i.e., before the superannuation of

respondent No.1 on 30.04.2014.

7. It is evident that in Spl.C.No.20/2007,

respondent No.1 was convicted by the Special Judge

vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 09.11.2011. Thereafter, the disciplinary

authority imposed punishment on respondent No.1

dismissing him from service. It is evident that the

order passed by Special Court in Spl.C.No.20/2007 was

set aside by this court on 10.01.2017 in

Crl.A.No.1184/2011, wherein this court has discussed

meticulously the charges leveled against respondent

No.1 and has arrived at a conclusion as to how the FIR

is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and how the trap was

stated to be a false one. This court held that there are

total inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5

and absolutely there is no evidence in support of the

prosecution case to prove the allegations made against

respondent No.1. Accordingly, this court has acquitted

the respondent No.1. Against the said judgment, the

State has preferred SLP No.44161/2017 (Civil) the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the said

petition vide order dated 03.01.2017.

years. He has un-married son and an un-married

daughter. Looking into these aspects and also the

medical condition and keeping in mind the provisions

of Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules and

in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

also keeping in mind the acquittal of the respondent

No.1 at the hands of high court which has been

affirmed by the Supreme Court, the tribunal has

deemed it fit to modify the order of the dismissal and

substituted the punishment from one of dismissal to

compulsory retirement.

9. Therefore, we are of the considered view

that we find no merit in the writ petition. Particularly,

in view of the manner in which the trap was conducted

from 05.02.2013 to passing of the order of dismissing

the respondent No.1 from service at the fag end of his

retirement.

10. We do not find any justification in the

contention of learned Government Counsel seeking

reversal of the order of compulsory retirement at this

length of time which is also one of the punishment

prescribed under Rule 8 of KCS (CCA) Rules.

We find no error, perversity or illegality in the

impugned order passed by the tribunal. The said order

is based on sound reasons and also material in support

of the reasons. The finding of the tribunal cannot be

said as arbitrary or illegal, considering the present

facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

HJ