Karnataka High Court
Sri S Mahadevaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.23484 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O LATE SUBBA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC
MADDUR, MANDYA - 571 428
RESIDING AT NO.5/60, VANGASETTY STREET
MADHUVANAHALLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 581 801
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FIED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.4626/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.4626/2022
AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed against the order dated
25.09.2023 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
in Application No.4626/2022, dismissing the application
preferred by the petitioner challenging Annexure-A27 dated
26.09.2022 of the first respondent inflicting the penalty of
compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are stated as follows:-
The petitioner a practicing advocate was appointed to
the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on 15.05.2006.
-
While working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court
of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC,
Mysore, one Sri.Ranjan Shetty lodged a complaint on
17.01.2007, with Lokayukta Police, alleging that the
petitioner has demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as illegal
gratification to argue a murder case. Based on the said
complaint, the Lokayukta Police laid a trap on 18.01.2007,
and registered an FIR in Crime No.1/2007 for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, with the petitioner as the sole
accused. During 2008, the Lokayukta Police filed a charge
sheet against the Petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.41/2008. The
Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore framed the charge in
Spl.C.C.No.41/2008 on 11.02.2010 and also examined the
witnesses. The Trial Court by judgment dated 16.06.2011
has acquitted the petitioner honourably and held that there
is absolutely no evidence to convict the petitioner and that
there is no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
3. Later, on 26.07.2011 the second respondent sent
an observation note stating identical allegations as alleged in
-
the earlier complaint i.e., Crime No.1/2007 filed against the
petitioner, to which the petitioner had also sent an
explanation on 19.09.2011. On 21.01.2012 a report was
sent by the Upa Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 recommending to initiate
departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Based on the
report, the first respondent by an order dated 05.05.2012
entrusted the matter to third respondent, pursuant to which
an enquiry officer was also nominated. Thereafter, on
26.10.2012, the Articles of Charge came to be issued
against the petitioner. In the meantime, the case before the
Lokayukta was transferred from ARE-8 to ARE-4. The
enquiry officer had submitted the enquiry report on
16.08.2018 holding that the charges levelled against the
petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the second respondent
sent a recommendation dated 20.08.2018 to first
respondent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement from
service on the petitioner. Based on the said
recommendation, the Under Secretary has issued second
-
show cause notice on 15.09.2018 to which the petitioner has
sent his reply on 17.10.2018.
4. Challenging the said show cause notice, the
petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application
No.4797/2019. Upon hearing the matter, the Tribunal
initially directed to maintain status quo and later dismissed
the application on 25.05.2022. Aggrieved by this order, the
petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.11555/2022
which came to be dismissed with a direction to the petitioner
to submit his reply statement within one week. The
petitioner complied with this order and submitted a detailed
reply on 11.07.2022.
5. In the meanwhile, the first respondent passed the
impunged order dated 26.09.2022 against the petitioner by
imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement as per Rule
8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The petitioner filed another
application challenging this impugned order before the
Tribunal in Application No.4626/2022. The matter was
heard by the Tribunal and petitioner's application was
-
dismissed on 25.09.2023. Aggrieved by this order of the
Tribunal passed in Application No.4626/2022, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the
Lokayukta as well as the learned Additional Government
advocate appearing for the official respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner was
that he had accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the
complainant - Shri. Ranjan Shetty on 18.01.2007. On the
very same charge, he had undergone a full-fledged trial
which had ended in acquittal. The appeal filed by the State
was also dismissed. It was thereafter that the charge memo
was issued on 26.10.2012. It is submitted that the initiation
of disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated by the long delay.
It is further contended that the petitioner was set ex-parte
in the enquiry after the change of the enquiry officer. The
enquiry report dated 16.08.2018 also did not consider the
contention of the petitioner that he had been honourably
-
acquitted of the same charge. Further, though the issue
was raised before the disciplinary authority, the fact of
Honourable Acquittal was not properly considered. It is
contended that the imposition of the severe punishment of
compulsory punishment was not commensurate with the
charges alleged against the petitioner.
8. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has places reliance on the following citations:-
• RAM LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
reported in Civil Appeal No. 7935/2023 (Paras-9, 13,
23, 25 and 27);
• Sri. B.R. SHASHIKANTH AND ANOTHER v. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS decided on
19.12.2023 in W.P.No.20439/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-
8, 12 to 18);
• RAGHAVENDRA KOPPA v. THE SECRETARY AND
ANOTHER decided on 19.12.2023 in
W.P.No.1297/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-10,13 and 16);
• M. VENKATESH MURTHY v. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY AND ANOTHER decided on 19.12.2023 in
W.P.No.17816/2021 (S-KSAT) (Paras-10, 18 and 22);
• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GYAN CHAND
CHATTAR reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 (Paras-21 and
35);
-
• S. BHASKAR REDDY AND ANOTHER v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 (Paras-25 and 26);
• P.V. RUDRAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS decided on 30.01.2024 in
W.P.No.9642/2020 (S-KSAT) [Paras 3(a) to (c)];
• Sri. B.M. NAGESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS decided on 07.02.2024 in
W.P.No.8494/2020 (S-KSAT) (Para-C);
• Sri. BHIMARAYA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS decided on 10.02.2022 in W.P.No.
205561/2019 (GM-KLA) (Paras-20 and 21); and
• STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, MYSORE v.
MAHADEVASWAMY decided on 27.10.2023 in
CRL.APPEAL No. 117/2012 (Paras-15, 19 and 26).
9. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the first respondent submits that the initiation
of proceedings and the charge memo issued to the petitioner
on 26.10.2012 were separately challenged by the petitioner
before the Tribunal and the challenge was rejected.
Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated.
After the enquiry report was submitted, the second show-
cause notice was issued on 15.09.2018, the same was also
-
again challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and
such challenge was repelled. It is only thereafter that the
report was considered and the punishment of compulsory
retirement was imposed on the petitioner. It is therefore
contended that the petitioner cannot raise the ground of
delay at this stage of the proceedings since that was the
specific ground on which he had challenged the entrustment
of proceedings to the Lokayukta and the charge memo
issued in the year 2012 un-successfully before the Tribunal
as well as before this Court.
10. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the
Lokayukta produced the files of the enquiry which shows
that even after the change of the Enquiry Officer on
03.08.2016, the petitioner was represented by his counsel in
the enquiry and had been given full opportunity to
participate in the proceedings.
11. We have considered the contentions advanced. It
was after the acquittal in the criminal case by the judgment
dated 16.06.2011 that the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated as against the petitioner. Therefore, the fact of
-
acquittal in the criminal case was perfectly known to the
Government as well as the enquiry officer, who had
conducted the proceedings. It is true that the charges in the
criminal case and in the enquiry proceedings were identical.
The witnesses were also the same. However, we notice from
the judgment of the Trial Court that the witnesses had been
subjected to detailed cross-examination in the trial.
However, in the enquiry, it is clear that in spite of ample
opportunity having been provided, the petitioner chose not
to cross-examine PWs.2 and 3. The testimony of PWs.2 and
3 therefore stood uncontroverted before the enquiry officer.
12. The enquiry officer, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that
the charges alleged against the petitioner stood proved. It
is trite law that the standard of proof required in a criminal
trial and in disciplinary proceedings are entirely different.
The petitioner cannot rely totally on the acquittal in the
criminal trial and ought to have taken steps to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses in the enquiry.
-
13. Having considered the contentions advanced and
the findings of the Tribunal, we are in agreement with the
findings of the Tribunal that the criminal case and
disciplinary proceedings are distinct in their nature and
essence. The disciplinary proceedings have to be conducted
on the basis of the materials is placed in the enquiry.
14. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings
themselves have been initiated only after the petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case on 16.06.2011. The acquittal
stands confirmed in the appeal as well and has thus become
final. However, on the very same charges, the respondents
found it fit to initiate a disciplinary enquiry as against the
petitioner. The petitioner challenged the initiation of the
disciplinary enquiry by filing an application before the
Tribunal on the ground that the initiation of enquiry after the
acquittal is bad in law as also on the ground that there was
an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. The
Tribunal considered the said contentions and by order dated
25.05.2022 in Application No.4797/2019 rejected the
application. Though the said order was taken up before this
-
Court in W.P.No.11555/2022, the same also stood rejected.
Thereafter, when the second show-cause notice was issued
to the petitioner, again, an application was filed as
Application No.4797/2019. The Tribunal initially directed
maintenance of status quo but by judgment dated
25.05.2022 the application was dismissed after considering
the contentions advanced. The petitioner had challenged
this order in W.P.No.11555/2022. In the said writ petition
also, the contentions were considered on merits and the writ
petition was dismissed directing the petitioner to submit his
reply statement to the second show-cause notice. It is true
that this Court as well as the Tribunal had held that all the
contentions could be considered in case the enquiry ends
with the imposition of a penalty as against the petitioner.
15. Having considered the contentions advanced and
having given our anxious consideration to the materials on
record and the findings of the Tribunal, we are of the
considered opinion that the Tribunal has considered the
contentions raised by the applicant on merits. The relevant
aspects of the matter have been properly considered by the
-
Tribunal in its order. We find that there is no patent error or
illegality in the order of the Tribunal, which would justify
interference by this Court. We are of the opinion that the
relevant aspects of the matter have been properly
considered by the Tribunal in its order.
16. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition
fails, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*
