Karnataka High Court
Ankush S/O Shankar Methri vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
WP No.200579 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO.200579 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
ANKUSH
S/O SHANKARA METHRI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
(SURVEYOR, UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT),
R/AT HIPPARAGA VILLAGE,
MOTHER GAO POST, HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 101.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
WP No.200579 of 2021
3. THE COMMISSIONER
SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS,
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., H.C.G.P., FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED KSAT DATED
22.10.2020 AT ANNEXURE-B IN APPLICATION NO.10368/2016
CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED
02.08.2016 IN FILE NO. KAM.E.140 BHU.DA.SE.4/2015-16 AND
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2015 IN FILE NO.KAM.E.342
BHU.DA.SE(3)/2012-13 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 THE
COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A9 AND
A10, AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE WITH ALL BENEFITS TO
WHICH THE APPLICANT IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING AND
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.06.2024,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY
RAJESH RAI K J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
WP No.200579 of 2021
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order
dated 22.10.2020 passed in application No.10368/2016 by
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi,
(hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal) wherein the
tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as
under:
The petitioner was working as Second Division
Surveryor in the office of Tahsildar at Basavakalyan, Dist:
Bidar. A complaint was filed by one Chandrakant, before
the Lokayukta Police alleging that the petitioner demanded
a sum of Rs.1,300/- from the said Chandrakant to show
official favour by completing measurement work in respect
of land owned by one Baburao. As such, based on the said
complaint of Chandrakant, the Lokayukta Police laid the
trap on 25.10.2010 and arrested the petitioner and
thereafter produced him before the Special Court and sent
to judicial custody. As such, the second respondent-
Karnataka Lokayukta conducted the enquiry and framed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
the charges against him. The report of enquiry dated
02.08.2014 submitted by the enquiry officer reveals that
the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved.
Subsequently, on 01.09.2014, the Lokayukta
recommended to impose any penalty mentioned in Rule 8
(vi to viii) and opined that in the circumstances of the case
and gravity of the charge requires the penalty of
compulsory retirement under Rule 8 (vi). Acting on the
said recommendation, the first respondent issued second
show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.10.2014.
However, the petitioner has not given a reply to the said
notice, as such the first respondent imposed the penalty of
compulsory retirement of the petitioner by order dated
16.07.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
approached the Appellate Authority and the appeal came
to be dismissed on 21.10.2015. Hence, the petitioner
approached before the tribunal by filing application
No.10368/2016 and the tribunal after assessment of oral
and documentary evidence rejected the application as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
stated supra. Challenge to the same is lis before this
Court.
3. We have heard the learned the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
4. It is the primary contention of the petitioner
that, the petitioner acquitted in the criminal charges by
the Special Court in Spl.C.No.44/2012 vide judgment
dated 31.07.2023. Learned counsel placing the reliance on
the said judgment, would contend that the Special Judge
after considering elaborately the evidence of the
complainant, shadow witness and the evidence of
Investigating Officer acquitted the accused from the
charges leveled against him for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, in Civil
Appeal No.7935/2023 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.33423/2018), held that if the charge against the
accused is not proved before the criminal Court in the trial,
based on the evidence of same witness, punishment
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
cannot be imposed in a departmental proceedings by the
disciplinary authority. She also relied a co-ordinate bench
judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.9642/2020, in
the case of P.V.Rudrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another, vide order dated 30.01.2024, wherein it is also
held that the major penalty cannot be imposed in a
departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority
when the similar evidence placed before the authority,
which already adduced before the Criminal Court and the
Criminal Court acquitted the accused for the charges
leveled against him under Prevent of Corruption Act.
Additionally, she contends that there was no work of the
complainant was pending with the petitioner, as such the
question of petitioner demanding bribe for any work does
not arise. Hence, she prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP and the counsel
appearing for the Lokayukta jointly submits that the
petitioner was acquitted in the criminal prosecution by the
Special Court vide judgment dated 31.07.2023. However,
the tribunal passed the order on 22.10.2020. In such
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of
his acquittal order in the special Court and the tribunal has
rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. They
would further contend that on perusal of the judgment
passed in SPl.Case.44/2012, the petitioner acquitted on
the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Though, the material witnesses
have supported the prosecution case, in such
circumstance, in a disciplinary proceeding the guilt of the
Delinquent Government Officer need not be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and punishment can be imposed by
considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hence, in
the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has rightly
imposed the penalty and the tribunal has rightly upheld
the said order. Accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
6. As could be seen from the records, as
submitted by both the learned counsel for the parties, the
tribunal passed the impugned order which is challenged in
this writ petition on 22.10.2020 and thereafter, the
petitioner acquitted in the Special Case No.44/2012 by the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
Special Judge vide order dated 31.11.2023. As such, the
petitioner was unable to place the said judgment before
the tribunal to consider his case by relying on the said
acquittal judgment stated supra. Nevertheless, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramlal's case stated supra laid the
law on the similar aspect, we are of the considered view,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of
tribunal by providing an opportunity to the petitioner by
placing the judgment passed in Special Case No.44/2012
before the tribunal and to urge his contentions to that
effect and also by placing reliance of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra.
7. In that view of the matter, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(a) The petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4454-DB
(b) The impugned judgment passed in application
No.10368/2016 passed by the tribunal is set
aside.
(c) The application is resorted on it file.
(d) The parties are directed to appear before the
tribunal on 24.07.2024 without awaiting any
notice.
(e) The tribunal is requested to dispose of the
application by giving opportunity to both the
parties to place the documents which they
intended to rely. Other contentions of the
parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.:1
CT:BN
