Karnataka High Court

Sri vs Raghavendran V/S The State Of ... on 4 March, 2022

Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

     WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:


SRI. V.S. RAGHAVENDRAN
S/O V.S. SHESHAGIRI RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NO.68
3RD CROSS ROAD
VIDYARANYANAGARA
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023
ELECTION SHERISTEDAR
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU.
                                      ....PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SHANTAKUMAR K.C, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       M.S. BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                             2




2.   THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONR
     BENGALURU DIVISION
     BMTC DEPOT, K.H. ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 027.

3.   THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
     M.S. BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
                                        ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
BEARING A.NO.4837/2018 DATED:09.04.2021 AND ON REVIEW
APPLICATION BEARING R.A. NO.47/2021 DATED:30.09.2021
VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND B AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                           ORDER

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated

09.04.2021 and 30.09.2021 passed in Application

bearing A.No.4837/2018 and review application

bearing R.A.No.47/2021 respectively by the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Tribunal') .

2. The above application was filed by the

petitioner herein contending inter alia that:

a) While he was working as RR Sheristedar

in the Office of Tahsildar, Bangalore a

complaint was lodged by one

Sri.Kodandarama Reddy against him on

28.07.2008 before the Lokayukta Police

alleging that his wife had made an

application on 10.01.20018 for cha4nge of

Khatha and that the petitioner had

demanded bribe in a sum Rs.10,000/- for

change of Katha and that the amount was

reduced to Rs.7,000/-.

b) The petitioner on receipt of the said file,

attended to the same on 25.07.2008 and

thereafter, forwarded to the Tahsildar for

further action. As on the date of the filing

of the complaint no work of the

complainant was pending with petitioner.

As such the question of demanding bribe

amount would not arise.

c) There was no demand for payment of

any bribe as alleged. That upon aforesaid

complaint a trap was laid on the petitioner.

At that time the aforesaid complainant

thrust the alleged bribe amount of

Rs.7,000/- forcibly into the left side pant

packet of the petitioner at which time

Lokayukta police entered the office and

caught hold of the petitioner.

d)       A         statement         was       recorded.

Departmental             proceedings             against

petitioner/applicant was initiated. A Report

dated 18.11.2012 under Section 12(3) of

the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was

filed. Matter was entrusted under Section

14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1957 and enquiry was conducted against

the petitioner/applicant under Rule 10-A.

Article of charges was issued to the

Petitioner on 16.08.2012. Petitioner

submitted a written defence statement on

28.01.2013. Enquiry was conducted.

Witnesses were examined. No defence

witnesses was examined on behalf of the

petitioner. Enquiry was concluded by

hearing and by submitting written

arguments. Petitioner was held guilty of the

charges leveled against him and report in

that regard was submitted.

e) The Respondent No.3 on receipt of the

enquiry report on 19.04.2017

recommended the Respondent No.1 to

impose penalty of compulsory retirement

from service as the charges were proved

against the petitioner. A Show cause notice

dated 03.06.2017 was issued by the first

respondent calling upon the petitioner to

submit his report, if any to the show cause

notice within 15 days.

f) Petitioner submitted his reply on

25.01.2018 seeking drop of the enquiry

proceedings on the premise that on the

very same charges a criminal case in

Spl.CC No.101/2009 had been filed by the

third respondent against the petitioner

before the Special Judge, which ended in

his acquittal. That without considering the

reasons given by the petitioner in his reply

to the show cause notice, the first

respondent proceeded to pass the

impugned order dated 22.05.2018

imposing the penalty of compulsory

retirement from the services on the

petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the

above application bearing A.No.4837/2018 before the

Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 09.04.2021

dismissed the said application. The petitioner had filed

a Review Application in R.A.No.47/2021 seeking review

of this order which the Tribunal by its order dated

30.09.2021 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by

the above order, the petitioner is before this Court in

the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition

submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the

contentions of the petitioner to the effect that the

charges leveled against the petitioner in the

Departmental proceedings as well as in the Criminal

Proceedings are one and the same and the witnesses

examined before the Criminal Court and the

Departmental Proceedings are also one and the same

and the petitioner having been honorably acquitted in

the criminal case ought to have been discharged of the

charges leveled in the departmental proceeding. That

the entrustment made by the first respondent for

conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner

to the Upa-Lokayukta was bad and without application

of mind and the entire proceedings is thus stands

vitiated. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned HCGP justifying

the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the

charges against the petitioner have been proved in the

enquiry conducted. The petitioner have been provided

with adequate opportunities of hearing as

contemplated under Law. That the Government has

shown leniency while imposing penalty of compulsory

retirement. That the tribunal has taken into

consideration all these aspects of the matter has

rightly dismissed the petition warranting no

interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the records.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Pravin

Kumar vs. Union or India and others (2020)9 scc

271 referring to its earlier judgment in the case of

B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India at paragraphs 12 and

13 has held as under;

"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal concerned is to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in

violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant, Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at SCR pp. 728-29 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

8. In the instant case, the facts narrated by

the petitioner himself in the application before the

Tribunal and reiterated in this writ petition as noted

above, would leave no doubt of the fact that the

petitioner has been provided sufficient opportunity as

mandated under Rule 14-A sub- rule (2) of Karnataka

Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. Initiation of enquiry,

departmental proceedings, recording the statement of

the petitioner, conducting the enquiry in compliance

with Rule 14-A, issuance of article of charges along

with notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his

written defence statement, submission of written