Karnataka High Court

Raghavendra Koppa vs The Secretary on 19 December, 2023

Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                                           W.P. No. 1297/2021

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                             AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

       WRIT PETITION NO. 1297 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

RAGHAVENDRA KOPPA
S/O KRISHNA CHARY A.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PARAVATHI NILAYA
GOKUL ROAD, 2ND CROSS
ARAVINDNAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.               ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE SECRETARY
       FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
       CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRES-8
       KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
       MS BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001.                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. A.S. HARISHA, AGA FOR R1;
    SHRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
                                                    W.P. No. 1297/2021

                                    2

ORDER DATED 07.09.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 6713 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
APPLICATION NO. 6713 OF 2016 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 22.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-

                               ORDER

This writ petition is presented with following prayers:

"1. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to quash the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 passed in Application No.6713 of 2016 on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, as per Annexure-A and consequently allow Application No.6713 of 2016 as prayed for.

2. Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grants in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. We have heard Shri. B.S. Sachin, learned

Advocate for the petitioner and Shri. Venkatesh Arabatti,

learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

3. Brief facts of the case are, a complaint was

lodged against petitioner, Raghavendra Koppa, working as

an Employee in Department of Legal Metrology, alleging that

he had demanded bribe. On investigation, a charge sheet

was filed. After trial, he has been acquitted by the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, vide order1 dated

25.01.2017.

4. A Departmental Enquiry2 was also initiated.

The Enquiry Officer3 held that petitioner is guilty of charges.

The Hon'ble Lokyuktha recommended4 a penalty withholding

five increments and the said penalty was imposed.

5. Aggrieved, petitioner approached the KSAT5 and

his application has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Shri. Sachin, for the petitioner, praying to allow

this writ petition mainly contented that:

 the petitioner was honourably acquitted by the

Special Judge in the criminal case and it has

attained finality;

'DE' for short

The Additional Registrar Enquires

Dated 20.02.2016

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

 it is settled that if the charges in both criminal

case and DE are one and the same; and if the

delinquent official is acquitted in the criminal

case, he cannot be punished in the departmental

proceedings.

7. Opposing the writ petition, Shri. Arabatti, for the

Lokayukta, submitted that each case will have to be

examined with reference to the facts of that case. In the

case on hand, DGO's have not been examined before the

Special Court; P.W.1 and P.W.2 have turned hostile and

therefore, this is not a case of honourable acquittal.

Therefore, this petition does not merit any consideration.

8. In support of his contentions, Shri. Arabatti has

mainly placed reliance on following authorities:

i. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Vs. C. Nagaraju6;

ii. State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh7.

(2008) 1 SCC 1

(2022) 6 SCC 563

9. We have carefully considered rival contentions

and perused the records.

10. Based on the submissions on both sides, the

questions that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether petitioner was honourably acquitted in

the criminal case?

(ii) Whether the impugned order calls for any

interference?

Re. point No.(i):

11. Undisputed facts of the case are, a complaint was

lodged against petitioner alleging that he had demanded

bribe. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the

petitioner. In the DE, the charges were held proved and

penalty has been imposed.

12. Shri. Sachin, for the petitioner, has mainly placed

reliance upon following authorities:

i. Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines8;

ii. S. Bhaskarreddy and another Vs. Superintendent

of Police and another9.

iii. G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat10

13. We have perused the above authorities.

The principle laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony, S. Bhaskar

Reddy and another and G.M.Tank is similar, that if the

accused is acquitted of charges in criminal case and a DE is

initiated based on same set of facts and evidence, the

penalty order shall be unsustainable. However, if the

charges or evidences let in are different, it does not bar the

departmental proceedings.

14. The charges framed in the criminal case and DE

are as follows:

(1999)3 SCC 679

2015 AIR SCW 571

(2006) 5 SCC 446

Charges in the Criminal Case: Charges in the Departmental Enquiry :

"Point No.1. Whether the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable "That you DGO-2 Sri. V.Krishna, "D"

doubt that, on 31.08.2010, Group Employee, Department of Legal 01.09.2010 and 04.09.2010, accused Metrology, Udupi, demanded and No.1 and 2 demanded and received accepted a bribe of Rs.1000/- on bribe of Rs. 1000/- which is 04/09/2010 from the complainant gratification other than legal Sri.Ahemmad Kabir, S/o. Y. E. remuneration from C.W. 1 and there Ramjan,A.K Manjeel, Dugganthota, by committed an offence punishable Mulluru, Po Uchila, Udupi Taluk, Udupi Under Sec. 7 of Prevention of Distict for issue of verification Corruption Act? certificates when you received Rs.1600/- from the Complainant and Point No.2. Whether the prosecution after counting the said amount further proves beyond all reasonable received Rs.600/- towards the legal doubt that, on the aforesaid date, fees and told the Complainant to pay time and place, accused No. 1 and 2 the bribe amount of Rs.1000/- to the being public servants have committed Inspector Sri. Raghavendra. K. criminal mis-conduct by abusing their Koppar, who demanded and accepted position as public servants demanding the bribe amount of Rs.1000/- from and taking gratification other than the Complainant for issue of the legal remuneration i.e., a sum of Rs. verification certificate to the 1000/- as bribe from C.W. 1, for Complainant, that is for doing an doing favour in the matter of giving official act, and thereby you failed to certificate for Weight and maintain absolute integrity and Measurement of 2 aluminum scales devotion to duty and committed an and there by accused No. 1 and 2 act which is unbecoming of a have committed offence U/sec. Government Servant and thus you are 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of guilty of misconduct under Rule Prevention of Corruption Act? 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966."

Point No.3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place, the accused No. 3 to 5 abated C.W. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.

1,600/- to accused No.1 for giving certificate pertaining to inspection of Weight and Measurement of 2 scales, even though the government fee of Rs. 600/- for the said 2 scales and there by accused No. 3 to 5 have committed an offence punishable Under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption act read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code?

Point No.4. What Order?"

15. During the criminal trial, eight witnesses were

examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got Exs.P1 to P59 marked.

Before the DE, five witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and D.W.1 & D.W.2. The common witnesses

examined in both the criminal court and DE are as follows: