Karnataka High Court
The Registrar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
WP No. 8513 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.8513 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDINGS,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SANDHYA S
Location: High DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (SURVEY),
Court of
Karnataka REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT
AND LAND RECORDS,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
WP No. 8513 of 2021
3. SRI. H. R. SETTY
S/O. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS SURVEYOR,
OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR,
HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. K.SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: a) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANYOTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 26/02/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION
NO.2528/2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, b)AWARD THE COST OF
THIS WRIT PETIITON AND c)PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INTERIM
PRAYER WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY
PRAY THAT PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE INSTANT WRIT
PETITION THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO STAY THE
OPERATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/02/2020 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2528/2017 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE KRISHNA S DIXIT J., THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta has presented this
writ petition calling in question the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal's order dated 26th February, 2020 a
copy whereof avails at Annexure-A, whereby, the Tribunal has
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
quashed the disciplinary penalty of compulsory retirement that
was awarded to the respondent-employee herein on the proven
misconduct of bribery, the frugal bribe amount being Rs.500/-.
2. Learned panel counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argues that relief has been granted by the Tribunal to the
respondent-employee treating Criminal Court's judgment as an
honourable acquittal, when it is not. He submits that in
deciding cases for bribery & corruption, the quantum of bribe
amount is irrelevant, what is important being the moral
turpitude of public servant concerned. From that view, he
argues, the impugned order is liable to be voided and the
penalty order of compulsory retirement needs to be revived.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the delinquent
employee opposes the petition contending that the version of
criminal court, in its acquittal order, leaves no manner of doubt
as to its being honourable acquittal of the petitioner; the
Tribunal, which comprised of experts in the field as Members
having examined everything in their wisdom, have rendered
the impugned order and therefore, this Court should not
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
venture a roving enquiry as to the findings recorded by the
Tribunal; even otherwise, regard being had to the frugality of
the amount involved, and as a concession to the arguable
human nature, this Court may not interfere in the matter.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petitioner paper we decline interference in
the matter broadly agreeing to the reasoning of the Tribunal,
more particularly, we are of the view that the criminal court's
order in Special Case No.10 of 2005 disposed of on 24th
September, 2009, is an order of honourable acquittal, in the
light of norms reiterated by this Court in W.P.No.9642/2020
(S-KSAT) between P.V.RUDRAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
disposed off on 30.01.2024.
5. The above view gains support from the following
observation of the criminal Court:
"...the prosecution even though subjected to
examine material witness of PW3 who being the author
of Exhibit.P3 and so also the material witnesses of PW3
and PW4 who have been secured to act as panchas and
in their presence held entrust panchanama as per
Exhibit.P3 for having to show that if tainted currency
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
notes has been touched by a person as his hands were
washed with sodium solution which turned into pink in
colour and that PW3 and PW4 have not been supported
the case of the prosecution to any extent even in the
facts of Exhibit.P4 and Exhibit.P5 of the panchanama
has been held by PW9 who being the I.O in part has
been held entire investigation as where that PW6 who
laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore,
having examined the evidence placed on record closely
that too be the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 insofar
as Exhibit.P3, Exhibit P4 and Exhibit.P5 founds that the
prosecution is failed to establish the case even for
having subjected to examine PW2 who is the author of
the complaint as he was not supported the case of the
prosecution to the effect that the accused was
demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.500/- i.e.
in the denomination of Rs.100/- each which is marked
as M.O.10 and also that prosecution has failed to
establish the case that there was a conversation took in
between the accused and the complainant has been
heard by PW4 being the shadow witness who has
accompanied with the complainant to the house of the
accused."
In the above circumstances, this writ petition, being devoid
of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. It is made
clear that the petitioner, except earning the continuity of
service, shall not have any financial benefit. However, if he is
NC: 2024:KHC:6310-DB
already reinstated, all service benefits such as increments, etc.
that would accrue during the service, shall be paid to the
respondent-employee, immediately.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
