Karnataka High Court
Rajakumar Vajantri vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
WP No.200184 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.200184 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
RAJAKUMAR VAJANTRI
S/O LAKSHMAN VAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CEN CRIME P.S.
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS
CLUB ROAD, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU AND
Digitally signed SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATES)
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY).
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE OF KARNATAKA
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
WP No.200184 of 2022
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NORTH EASTERN RANGE
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.20400/2021 DATED 26TH
OCTOBER, 2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.E«/07/FªÀ/2011/60 DATED 11TH
JANUARY, 2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B THE SAME
DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A9 THEREIN; ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO DROP THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
WP No.200184 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner, while working as Circle Police Inspector,
Shahapur Circle, Yadagiri District, is served with Articles of
Charges under the Karnataka State Police [Disciplinary
Proceedings] Rules, 1965/89 on 22.12.2011. The Inspector
General of Police, Northeastern Range, Kalaburagi [the third
respondent] has issued the Endorsement dated 11.01.2021
issued] rejecting the petitioner's request for closure of the
disciplinary proceedings in the light of his acquittal in the
criminal case. The petitioner has filed an Application in
No.20040/2021 before the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Kalaburagi [for short, 'the Tribunal'] under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing by
the third respondent's Endorsement dated 11.01.2021, and
the Tribunal also has rejected the petitioner's Application by
the impugned order dated 26.10.2021.
2. The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that
the disciplinary proceedings had to be closed because,
amongst others, for the reasons that he was acquitted of
similar charges in S.C.No.187/2014 on the file of the I-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. The petitioner also
contended that the proceedings are commenced by an
incompetent officer and that the delay in conclusion vitiated
the proceedings. However, Sri Shridhar Prabhu, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, is categorical in his submission
that the petitioner would not press the petition insofar as
the Tribunal's reasons to reject the petitioner's grounds on
competency of the officer who has issued Articles of Charges
or the delay in completion of the departmental proceedings,
and the petitioner would seek this Court's interference with
the Tribunal's order because the departmental proceedings
cannot be sustained when the petitioner is acquitted of
similar charges in the criminal case on the ground that there
is no evidence. Sri Shridhar Prabhu emphasizes that the
evidence proposed in the departmental proceedings is the
same as in the Sessions case in S.C.No.187/2014.
3. The Tribunal, while considering the petitioner's
case for closure of the departmental proceedings on the
ground of acquittal in the criminal case, has referred to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Meher Singh1 to
conclude that the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case
because the prosecution did not adduce proper evidence and
because of certain loopholes in investigation observing that
in the departmental proceedings the evidence as against the
petitioner would be tested on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities as against on the scale of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt employed in criminal proceedings. This
Court must record that the Tribunal has not discussed in
the detail the evidence let in the aforesaid case.
4. The petitioner is issued with Articles of Charges
on 22.12.2011 alleging that the petitioner, misusing his
powers as a Police Officer, [i] had conspired to cause the
murder of Sri Srinivas Bettanakeri and to enable his co-
conspirators, [ii] he had taken on hire certain rooms in
Veena Lodge; [iii] he had secured mobile SIM
No.9535345982 so that the co-conspirators could keep in
touch with him; and [iv] he had registered a false case
against his co-conspirators in Crime No.305/2010 for
1 2013 7 SCC 685
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 109, 323,
120(B) and 34 of IPC so that they could gain access to
prison to accomplish the conspiracy. The respondents have
cited Sri Govindappa [Head Constable], Sri Shrimant Illal
[Police Sub-Inspector], Sri Mahesh S/o Siddalingappa Patil
[the owner of M/s. Veena Lodge, Sindhanur], Sri Mallikarjun
and Sri Bhimarao, [Managers of M/s. Veena Lodge,
Sindhanur] as witnesses to be examined in the departmental
proceedings.
5. The jurisdictional police, who had also registered
crime against the petitioner and others, with similar
charges, have filed charge sheet. The petitioner and the
other accused have stood trial in S.C.No.187/2014. In this
case, Sri Govindappa is examined as PW-16, Sri Srimanth
Illal is examined as PW-21, Sri Mahesh, Sri Mallikarjun and
Sri Bhimarao are examined as PWs-9, 10 and 11
respectively. Sri Govindappa [PW-16], as could be seen in
the Session Court's judgment in S.C.No.187/2014, has
deposed that he had registered the FIR in Crime
No.305/2010 and had gone to the Government Hospital to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
record the statement of the injured but then the injured was
not there. This witness has also spoken about deputing
police officials to apprehend the culprits mentioned in this
first information report and the culprits being apprehended
and produced before the concerned learned Magistrate for
judicial custody.
6. Sri Shrimanth Illal [PW-21] is the Investigating
Officer, and he has stated, again as seen from the Sessions
Court's judgment, that though initially investigation in
Crime No.305/2010 was done by him, the further
investigation is conducted by the Superintendent of Police
and charge sheet is filed against the accused. Sri Mahesh
[PW-9], Sri Mallikarjun [PW-10] and Sri Bhimarao [PW-11],
while speaking about the bill books of the lodge being seized,
have admitted to certain interpolations indicating the name
of the petitioner and they have all denied the original entry
in the lodge bill book and the later interpolations are in their
hands. The prosecution has also tried to place on record
certain call records to demonstrate that the petitioner had
secured SIM card, but the Sessions Court has disbelieved
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
the same as the prosecution did not comply with the
requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
7. The Sessions Court, in the light of the evidence
as against the afore allegations against the petitioner, has
opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the
petitioner's role in the case and that the false accusation has
adversely affected the petitioner in his career. At this stage,
this Court must also observe that the Sessions Court, while
commenting on whether the petitioner must be granted any
compensation, has referred to the prosecution's failure to
adduce proper evidence observing that there are certain
loopholes in investigation, but without separately
mentioning or discussing the same in detail.
8. It is admitted that after the Articles of Charges
are served on the petitioner, there is no progress in the
departmental proceedings. The petitioner, at the first
instance, filed an application in No.862/2013 before the
Tribunal for stay of the departmental proceedings until the
culmination of the trial in S.C.No.187/2014 and the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
Tribunal has rejected this request for stay by its order dated
22.09.2016. The petitioner has challenged this order in the
writ petition in W.P.No.205303/2016 and this writ petition
is also rejected. In the meanwhile, the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Bidar is appointed as the Enquiry
Officer and the petitioner has filed a representation for
transfer of the departmental proceedings from Bidar to
either Kalaburagi or Yadagiri and the Endorsement dated
11.01.2021, according to the petitioner, is issued in
response to this request.
9. Sri Shirdhar Prabhu, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that it is undeniable that the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner and the departmental
proceedings are on the same allegations and the
respondents propose to examine the very same witnesses
who have been examined in the criminal case. The learned
counsel argues that the Sessions Court, on appreciation of
their evidence as also the evidence as against the other
accused, has recorded a categorical opinion of no evidence
against the petitioner, and because the petitioner is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
acquitted on the ground that there is no evidence on
culpability, especially with the Sessions Court observing that
the petitioner's career prospects are marred by false
accusations, this would be a case where the petitioner is
honourably acquitted and hence a proper case for this
Court's interference not just with the Tribunal's order but
also for quashing of the Articles of Charges leading to
closure of departmental proceedings.
10. On the question of honourable acquittal, Sri
Shridhar Prabhu proposes to rely upon, amongst others, the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meher Singh's case
and the consideration thereof by the Division Bench of this
Court in P.V. Rudrappa vs. The State of Karnataka and
another2 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.V. Rudrappa's case'].
Sri Shridhar Prabhu is also insistent that he would place
reliance on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others3 [hereinafter
referred to as 'Ram Lal's case']. It would suffice for this
3 2023/INSC/1047
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
Court to observe that there cannot be a decision with the
incantation of the expression "honourable acquittal" and it
would be imperative for the Courts to examine whether, in
the light of allegations in the departmental proceedings and
the criminal case and in the light of the evidence that is
brought on record in a criminal case and considered by the
concerned Court, the acquittal is because there is either no
evidence to indicate culpability or to connect the
accused/delinquent with the commission of the offence.
11. A coordinate Division Bench of this Court in P.V.
Rudrappa's case has examined the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ram Lal's case as also Meher Singh's
case. The Division Bench has observed that though the
expression "honourable acquittal" is not defined under any
statute and is difficult to apply but must be applied
considering the circumstances of a case has illustrated
certain circumstances where acquittal in criminal
proceedings would inure to the benefit of the employee. The
Division Bench is also categorical that when the employee is
discharged at pre-trial stage or when the criminal
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
proceedings are quashed it would be case of 'honourable
acquittal'. The relevant paragraph of the Division Bench's
decision reads as under:
"(c) The idea of 'honourable acquittal' is not easy to
define although it can be illustrated. If an accused is
discharged at pre-trial stage or the criminal proceeding
launched against him is quashed, there is no difficulty
in treating the same as the cases of 'honourable
acquittal' for the limited purpose of disciplinary enquiry.
(We are mindful that the question of acquittal comes
post trial). A case of 'honourable acquittal' may arise
when, after trial the Criminal Court orders acquittal with
any of nearly the following illustrives:
(i) the accused is falsely prosecuted to seek
vengeance or for some ulterior motive.
(ii) that there is absolutely no evidence to implicate
the accused in the proceedings.
(iii) there is very little evidence which is insufficient to
connect the accused with the commission of
crime.
(iv) the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charges against the accused.
(iv) the prosecution witnesses are unworthy of any
credit and their version does not generate any
confidence.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
12. Smt. Maya T.R., the learned High Court
Government Pleader, without controverting the legal
propositions canvassed by Sri Shridhar Prabhu, contends
that the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case is because
the relevant witnesses have turned hostile and the loopholes
in the investigation. Smt. Maya T.R. argues that if the
evidence that could be tendered by the cited witnesses is
examined on the scale of preponderance of probabilities,
misconduct by the petitioner in terms of the Articles of
Charges can be established and that at this stage it would
be premature to opine that the petitioner, because he has
the advantage of acquittal in criminal case, must be given
the benefit of closure of the departmental proceedings.
13. The Articles of Charges dated 22.12.2011 and the
questions considered by the Sessions Court as against the
petitioner are from the same accusations, i.e., [i] enabling
the co-conspirators to meet at Veena Lodge, [ii] securing
mobile SIM for co-ordinating, [iii] registering false case
against the concerned co-accused resulting in their judicial
remand and lodging in prison and [iv] these persons
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
executing the conspiracy hatched to cause the murder of Sri
Srinivas Bettanakeri. This Court must, at the outset,
observe that though the allegation was that certain arms
were recovered within the prison, the Sessions Court has
opined that the same is not established.
14. The Sessions Court, after a detailed examination
of the evidence of Sri Govindappa [PW-16] and Sri
Shrimanth Illal [PW-21], the police personnel who have
registered FIR in Crime No.305/2010 and who conducted
the initial investigation respectively, has categorically opined
that the Superintendent of Police, Bidar has completed the
investigation in this crime resulting in charge sheet with the
alleged co-conspirators standing trial for the offence for
which FIR is registered.
15. Further, the Sessions Court, considering the
testimony of Sri Mahesh [PW-9], Sri Mallikarjun [PW-10] and
Sri Bhimarao [PW-11], the Owner and Managers of M/s.
Veena Lodge respectively, has opined that the evidence of
these witnesses do not establish that rooms in this lodge
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
were booked at the petitioner's instance. Furthermore,
though the prosecution has sought to produce certain call
records, they have failed to establish the probative value of
the same as is required in law under the provisions of
Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
16. The question for consideration, in the light of the
law that must be applied, is whether with the Sessions
Court opining that the prosecution has failed to establish
the petitioner's culpability and his career is marred by false
accusations, the alleged misconduct can be established in
the departmental proceedings based on the testimony of the
same witnesses. This Court, on a careful consideration of
the material on record, is of the considered view that this
would be a case where evidence is insufficient to sustain
allegations even on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities as observed by the coordinate Bench in P.V.
Rudrappa's case. The Tribunal, without considering the
circumstances of the case as discussed in the criminal case
by the Sessions case as it should be in law, has rejected the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1571-DB
petitioner's application in an irregular exercise of its
jurisdiction. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The Endorsement dated 11.01.2021 issued
by the third respondent and the Tribunal's
order dated 26.10.2021 passed in
Application No.20400/2021 are quashed.
(iii) The petitioner will not be entitled for any
financial consequences resulting from this
order but for continuity of service for
promotion and others.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SWK/ Ct;Vk
