Karnataka High Court
Chidananda vs The Upalokayukta on 13 June, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 21835 OF 2015 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN
CHIDANANDA
S/O DAYANANDA SHETTIGAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT QTS.NO.2
KEB QUARTERS
NEAR T B CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPURA 561 203
BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UPALOKAYUKTA
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA M S BUILDING
RAGHAVENDRA DR B R AMBEDAR VEEDHI
Location: HIGH BANGALOREE 560 001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES - 3
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUIDLING
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
3. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
KAVERI BHAVANA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. ARBATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE ENQUIRY REPORT
DT.30.8.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A THE
RECOMMENDATION LETTER DT.3.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-1
VIDE ANNX-B AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE R-3 BOARD
COMMITTEE MEETING FOR DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER, IN
THE BOARD MEETING WHICH WAS HELD ON 18.3.2015 IN
SUBJECT NO.92/21 VIDE ANNX-C.AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2025, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Table of Contents
A. Background ............................................................................... 4
A. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner ......................................... 9
B. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ........................ 19
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 3 .................................. 31
D. Points for Consideration ............................................................. 52
E. Whether the decision of the learned Trial Court dated
30.03.2013 is binding upon the Respondent No.3-Authority and
subsequently the Disciplinary Committee?.......................................... 54
F. Whether the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by Respondent
No.3-Authority can run parallelly to the criminal proceedings
before the learned Trial Court?.......................................................... 61
G. Whether the recommendation letter dated 03.09.2014
issued by Respondent No.1- Upa-lokayukta and the subsequent
entrustment of investigation to the Additional Registrar
Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayukta can be held to be valid in law?............. 63
H. Whether the decision taken by the Respondent No.3-Board
Committee dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the Petitioner from
service, requires any interference at the hands of this Court? ............... 68
I. Answer to Point No.5: What order? ................................................ 78
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
A. Background
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records relating to the Enquiry report
dated: 30-08-2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent in
No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: A, the
recommendation letter dated: 03/09/2014 issued by
the Respondent No.1 in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010
Vide Annexure: B and the decision taken by the 3rd
Respondent Board committee meeting for dismissal of
the Petitioner, in the Board Meeting which was held on
18-03-2015 in Subject No.92/21vide. Annexure-C.
(ii) Issue any appropriate order or direction or a Writ in
the nature of Certiorari and to quash Enquiry report
dated 30-08-2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 in
No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: A, the
recommendation letter dated: 03/09/2014 issued by
the Respondent No.1 in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010
Vide Annexure: B and also the decision taken by the
3rd Respondent Board committee meeting for
dismissal of the Petitioner, in the Board Meeting which
was held on 18/03/2015 in subject No.92/21
vide Annexure-C.
(iii) Grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent no.3
authority - Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited (KPTCL), in the year 2007 to the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
post of 'Assistant Executive Engineer' (in short:
'AEE') and came to be posted as the AEE to the O&M
Sub-Division, BESCOM, Gudibande Taluk.
3. The Petitioner claims that he was a sincere and
honest employee and discharged his duties with
utmost integrity.
4. One Sri. Devaraj (hereinafter referred to as
'Complainant') is an Electrical Contractor and a
resident of Varalakonda Village, Somenahalli Hobli,
Gudibande Taluk, who conducts the business of
installing electrical connections and wiring works for
residential customers.
5. In the complaint dated 28.12.2007, it is stated that
the complainant approached the Petitioner - AEE to
grant approvals for three applications for electrical
connections to the Secretary, Varlakonda Village
Panchayath, Sri. Krishnappa s/o Narayanappa of
Balenahalli and Sri. Shivanna s/o Nanjappa of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Polampalli. In furtherance of the same, the Petitioner
is claimed to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- for
each application, amounting to a total of Rs. 1500/-
for the approval and issuance of electrical
connections to the aforesaid applicants.
6. The complainant held back from conforming to this
demand, and he reached out to the Karnataka
Lokayukta Police, Chickaballapur District and filed a
complaint against the alleged demands of the
Petitioner, following which a 'trap' came to be set up
by the Lokayukta Police wherein the Petitioner is
alleged to have been caught red-handed accepting a
bribe of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant, consisting
of three Rs. 500 notes i.e. 500x3=1500/-.
7. Thereafter, an FIR came to be registered in Crime
No. 2/2007 against the Petitioner under Sections 7 &
13 (i)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Act' for brevity) and subsequently a criminal case
was instituted in the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur numbered as PCACC
01/2009.
8. The Petitioner pleaded 'Not Guilty' and contended
that the said money received was in furtherance of
securing monies that were lent as a loan to the
complainant previously for personal reasons, and in
that background, a trial was conducted and the Ld.
The Trial Court acquitted the Accused/Petitioner vide
order dated 30.03.2013, on the ground that the
alleged act of the Accused/Petitioner was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt, amongst other reasons.
9. Parallelly, during the pendency of the said case
before the learned Trial Court, the Lokayukta Police
vide communication dated 10.11.2009 to the
Respondent No.3 authority - KPTCL urged for the
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Petitioner in accordance with Section 12(3) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred
to as 'KL Act' for brevity) and subsequently
entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta Police.
10. The KPTCL, by its order dated 04.02.2010, held the
Petitioner to be a Delinquent Government Officer
(DGO), initiated a departmental inquiry and handed
over the inquiry to the Hon'ble Upa-lokayukta, who
subsequently vide the order dated 11.08.2010
nominated Respondent No.2 - Additional Registrar of
Enquires - 3 as the Inquiry Officer for the same.
11. The enquiry having been carried out, a report dated
30.08.2014 was filed by Respondent No.2, holding
the Petitioner to be guilty of the charged offence, and
the Hon'ble Upa-lokayukta recommended
Respondent No.3-authority vide letter dated
03.09.2014 to dismiss the Petitioner from service.
Further, the KPTCL, on the recommendation of the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
said report, issued an order dated 07.05.2015
dismissing the Petitioner from service.
12. It is impugning the enquiry report of Respondent
No.2 dated 30.08.2014, the letter of
recommendation by Respondent No.1 dated
03.09.2014 and the order of dismissal by Respondent
No.3 dated 18.03.2015, the Petitioner is before this
Court.
A. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
13. Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner, would submit that:
13.1. Not only are the findings of Respondent No.2 -
Authority perverse and ignorant of the relevant
evidence on record, Respondent No.3 - KPTCL,
without any application of mind, has
mechanically dismissed the Petitioner from
service based on the enquiry report and
recommendation submitted by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Upalokayukta and as such has abdicated its
legal duties as a 'Disciplinary Authority'.
13.2. Both criminal proceedings before the Trial Court
and the departmental proceedings before the
concerned authority have been conducted
based on the same set of common facts,
circumstances and witnesses. The learned Trial
Court, having come to the conclusion that the
allegations against the Petitioner have not been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it was
incumbent upon Respondent No.3 to have
considered the same before passing such
adverse orders, which indicates the 'Double
Standards' employed by the enquiry authority.
13.3. Respondent No.3, though having relied upon
the same set of documents that were
considered by the Trial Court, has strangely
rejected the judgement of the Trial Court by
holding that the deposition of PW-1 in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
criminal proceedings cannot be considered in
departmental enquiry proceedings.
13.4. The criminal case, having concluded much
before the disciplinary proceedings, it is legally
binding on Respondent No.2 to consider and
appreciate the evidence of the complainant in
the said criminal case.
13.5. He further submits that the findings of the Trial
Court are binding on the disciplinary
proceedings, more so in the background of the
Trial Court having delved in-depth to ascertain
the facts of the matter and the acquittal of the
Petitioner in that regard should have also
followed suit in the disciplinary proceedings.
13.6. The enquiry authority has erred in not noticing
the humanitarian ground upon which the
Petitioner had lent the said monies to the
complainant, on his request upon the death of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
his relative and the subsequent inability to
travel back to his native place.
13.7. The Petitioner, having lent monies amounting to
Rs.1,500/, was only receiving back his monies
when the alleged payment of the bribe was
made by the complainant. He states that the
money given by the complainant was not a
bribe but instead the returning of the money
loaned to him by the kind gesture of the
Petitioner.
13.8. The enquiring authority, having taken a stand
that this claim of the Petitioner is contradictory
to the statement of the complainant, stating to
have been warned to pay bribes for the
electrical instalments, is completely baseless
and without application of mind.
13.9. The Petitioner having no avenue but to
repeatedly demand the repayment of the lent
monies has led the complainant to develop a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
grouse against him coupled with the fact that
the complainant's inability to secure electrical
installations due to non-fulfilment of required
formalities (Ex-D1 & D2), the complainant has
just utilised the situation of repayment as an
opportunity to implicate the Petitioner in a false
case and satisfy his revengeful intentions.
13.10. The Lokayukta police, no-where have
succeeded in proving that the amount of
Rs.1500/- paid by the complainant to the
Petitioner on the day of the said trap was not in
pursuance of the repayment of the loan by the
complainant, both in the criminal case and in
the disciplinary proceedings.
13.11. The Petitioner, both before the criminal Court
and the disciplinary authority, has brought to its
notice the incomplete applications filed by the
complainant-electrical contractor for want of
connections. Required material aspects in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
application having been left blank, it was his
duty not to oblige and approve the said
applications and instead issued a notice to the
complainant in this regard. (Annexures-R & P).
13.12. The enquiry authority not only wilfully
disbelieves this statement but also fails to take
note of the complainant himself admitting to
the issuance of such a notice during the
disciplinary proceedings.
13.13. On this aspect, the learned Judge of Trial Court
at para 44 of the judgement has held as under:
"...Coming to ExD-1, it was so got marked
in the evidence of Pw9, who had placed a
charge sheet. As per Ex.D1 it is clear that,
the defects found in the application of
Krishnappa, Shivanna and Secretary of
Varlakunda panchayath were pointed out,
and those persons were required to comply
with the same. Since, compliance has not
been proved by the Prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt, it is difficult to hold that,
those there applications were ready, so as
to except, accused to do his part of work
without expecting any gratification.
Therefore, on this aspect also
Prosecution should fail ".
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
13.14. He further states that the complainant himself
had admitted to the loan transaction and
claimed repayment of the same, which had
been made through a friend of his, prior to the
date of the trap and was under the impression
such repayment had been made. (Annexure-N)
13.15. The criminal Court has rightly appreciated that
the complainant had accepted the said loan
transaction, his subsequent attempt to escape
from the liability of his statement by claiming
the repayment via a friend and the co-relation
to the statement of the Petitioner that he made
repeated demands for repayment of the loaned
monies.
13.16. In the deposition of the complainant before the
criminal Court and as well as the disciplinary
authority, he has stated to have given two
currency notes, i.e. Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-
denominations, respectively (Annexure-H).
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Whereas the Prosecution before both the
forums has stated that the three currency notes
were tendered as the alleged bribe i.e. Rs.500/-
denomination each.
13.17. The enquiry authority at the very threshold
ought to have disbelieved the case of the
Lokayukta on the said ground alone. Further, in
the examination-in-chief, the complainant
states to have paid the bribe by way of two (2)
currency notes and in the subsequent further
examination-in-chief, he changes the version as
payment of bribe made was in three (3)
currency notes and once again in the cross-
examination states to have paid the alleged
bribe by way of two (2) currency notes. Thus,
the mahazars in Annexures-L & M lose all
credence and cannot be appreciated as
evidence.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
13.18. This serious contradiction wholly rejects the
claims of bribery by the Respondents, and the
enquiry authority has ignored this aspect of the
judgement of the Trial Court, which goes to the
very root of the veracity of this case and has
totally been ignored by the Respondent No.2-
Authority.
13.19. Further, the enquiry authority has failed to
consider the fact that the shadow witness,
Mr.Sreenivas (PW-2), has stated to have neither
seen nor heard anything in relation to the
alleged case of bribery, either demand or
acceptance. The complainant himself states
that the said witness was standing outside from
the spot of the alleged transaction.
13.20. Lastly, he submits that inasmuch as the report
of the Karnataka Lokayukta under section 12(3)
of the Lokayukta Act, which was made to
Respondent No.3-KPTCL wherein it was
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
recommended to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the Petitioner. Strangely,
enquiry for the same was also sought to be
entrusted to the prosecuting authority, thereby
clearly vitiating the principles of a fair trial as
the prosecuting authority itself is once again
conducting the enquiry in disciplinary
proceedings, clearly going on to show that the
Upa-Lokayukta had already made up its mind
to hold the Petitioner guilty of the said charge.
13.21. In the disciplinary proceedings, no independent
enquiry and/or enquiry by persons not
belonging to the prosecuting authority having
been held, such an enquiry is wholly unjust,
unfair and questionable.
13.22. In view of his submissions hereinabove, he
prays for this Court to allow the instant petition
and quash Annexures A, B & C.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
B. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and
2
14. Sri. V. S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit
that:
14.1. The communication dated 10.11.2009 to the
Respondent No.3 authority, in furtherance of
entrusting the disciplinary proceedings to the
Lokayukta, was merely a communication and
not a direction thereof.
14.2. As regards the contentions of the Petitioner that
there has been a breach of due procedure,
principles of natural justice not being followed,
and that a proper opportunity was not provided
to the Petitioner to make his case are all
general allegations without any specific ground
for the same, the proved misconduct is based
on oral and documentary evidence and with the
proper application of mind.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
14.3. In relation to the contention of the Petitioner
that the Respondent No.3 authority has
abdicated its legal duties of that of a
Disciplinary Authority stands disproved by the
fact that all the documents marked and
witnesses examined were for and by the
Disciplinary Authority and not the Lokayukta.
14.4. The criminal proceedings against the Petitioner
being initiated for the commission of offences
under sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and the departmental enquiry proceedings
being initiated for the violation of Rule 3(1)(i)
to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct)
Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS
Rules' for brevity) are two distinct proceedings
that are not based on the same set of facts,
circumstances or outcomes and hence are
independent of each other.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
14.5. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
7. Offence relating to public servant being
bribed.--Any public servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from
any person, an undue advantage, with the
intention to perform or cause performance of
public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear
or cause forbearance to perform such duty either
by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an
undue advantage from any person as a reward for
the improper or dishonest performance of a public
duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either
by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to
perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or
to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation
of or in consequence of accepting an undue
advantage from any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this Section,
the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to
obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute
an offence even if the performance of a public duty
by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.--A public servant, 'S' asks a person,
'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees
to process his routine ration card application on
time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this Section.
Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this Section,--
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or
"attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a
person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts"
or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for
himself or for another person, by abusing his
position as a public servant or by using his
personal influence over another public servant; or
by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person
being a public servant obtains or accepts, or
attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or
through a third party.
14.6. By referring to Section 7 of the PC Act, he
submits that for an offence under the said
Section, there has to be both a demand and an
acceptance of an undue advantage with an
intention to perform or cause the performance
of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to
forbear or cause forbearance to perform such a
duty. He, therefore, submits that without a
demand and acceptance being established,
there is no question of an offence under Section
7 of the PC Act having been committed.
14.7. Section 13 of the PC Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
13. Criminal misconduct by a public
servant.--(1) A public servant is said to
commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain
from any person for himself or for any
other person any gratification other than
legal remuneration as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for
himself or for any other person, any
valuable thing without consideration or for
a consideration which he knows to be
inadequate from any person whom he
knows to have been, or to be, or to be
likely to be concerned in any proceeding or
business transacted or about to be
transacted by him, or having any
connection with the official functions of
himself or of any public servant to whom
he is subordinate, or from any person
whom he knows to be interested in or
related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for
his own use any property entrusted to him
or under his control as a public servant or
allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public
servant, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public
servant, obtains for any person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession or has, at any time during the
period of his office, been in possession for
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
which the public servant cannot
satisfactorily account, of pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to
his known sources of income.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this Section,
"known sources of income" means income
received from any lawful source and such
receipt has been intimated in accordance with
the provisions of any law, rules or orders for
the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not
less than 1[four years] but which may extend
to 2[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine."
14.8. Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1966 is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
3. General: (1) Every Government Servant
shall at all times; -
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a
Government Servant.
(2) (i) Every Government Servant holding a
supervisory post shall take all possible steps
to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty
of all Government Servants for the time being
under his control and authority;
(ii) No Government Servant shall, in the
performance of his official duties or in the
exercise of powers conferred on him, act
otherwise than in his best judgement except
that when he is acting under the direction of
his official superior and shall, where he is
acting under such direction obtain the
direction in writing, wherever practicable, and
where it is not practicable to obtain the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
direction in writing, he shall obtain written
confirmation of the direction as soon
thereafter as possible.
Explanation: Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule
(2) shall be construed as empowering the
Government Servant to evade his responsibilities
by seeking instruction from or approval of a
superior officer or authority when such
instructions are not necessary under the scheme
of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
14.9. By referring to Rule 3 of the KCS Rules, 1966,
he submits that the demand made for money
by promising to make available electric
connections is an action on the part of the
Petitioner, which is unbecoming of a
government servant, and such acceptance
establishes that the Petitioner has not acted
with absolute integrity.
14.10. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy
Inspector General of Police vs S.
Samuthiram1, more particularly Para Nos. 20
1
AIR 2013 SC 14
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
and 23 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of
an employee by a criminal court has no impact on
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a
member of a disciplined force and non
examination of two key witnesses before the
criminal Court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our
view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the
criminal case by the Prosecution. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility
of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case
cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the
Prosecution had not examined Head Constables
1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police
Station. It was these two Head Constables who
took the respondent from the scene of occurrence
along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to
the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their
presence that the complaint was registered. In
fact, the criminal Court has also opined that the
signature of PW 1 (husband - complainant) is
found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the Doctor
P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry
Officer that the respondent was under the
influence of liquor and that he had refused to
undergo blood and urine tests. That being the
factual situation, we are of the view that the
respondent was not honourably acquitted by the
criminal Court, but only due to the fact that PW 1
and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution
witnesses were not examined.
23. As we have already indicated, in the absence
of any provision in the service rule for
reinstatement, if an employee is honourably
acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred
on the employee to claim any benefit including
reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of
proof required for holding a person guilty by a
criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a
criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of
the accused is on the Prosecution and if it fails to
establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled
law that the strict burden of proof required to
establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in
a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of
probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases
where a person is acquitted for technical reasons
or the Prosecution giving up other witnesses since
few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In
the case on hand the Prosecution did not take
steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on
the ground that the complainant and his wife
turned hostile. The Court, therefore, acquitted the
accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not
prepared to say in the instant case, the
respondent was honourably acquitted by the
criminal Court and even if it is so, he is not
entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil
Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.
14.11. By relying on S. Samuthiram's case, his
submission is that the acquittal of an employee
by the criminal Court would not be binding on
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
concerned Department. Even if acquitted, the
employee derives no right for reinstatement to
service as the 'standard of proof' that is
warranted for holding a person guilty by the
criminal courts, and that of disciplinary
proceedings are wholly different.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
14.12. He further submits that the statements and
evidence produced before the Criminal Court
cannot be held to be relevant to departmental
enquiry proceedings as both proceedings are
initiated under different laws with different
purposes to be achieved.
14.13. The submission is that in criminal proceedings,
the Prosecution is required to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in
departmental/disciplinary proceedings, the
preponderance of probability is sufficient. In the
present case, the fact that the money was
made available by the complainant, which was
recovered from the pocket of the Petitioner, is
sufficient to establish that there is a demand
made by the Petitioner, which was satisfied by
the complainant. The acceptance is established
by the amounts being found in the pocket of
the Petitioner.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
14.14. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court supra, the findings of the criminal Court
are not binding on disciplinary proceedings.
14.15. If the claim of the Petitioner that he had helped
the complainant by loaning him monies out of
kindness were to be taken, then why would the
complainant have reached out to the Lokayukta
instead of settling the alleged matter with
Petitioner himself would also have to be seen.
14.16. If the complainant merely had a grouse against
the Petitioner in the background of a loan
transaction, there is no reason for the
complainant to have reached out to the
Lokayukta unless demands for bribes have been
made.
14.17. The Petitioner has set out to confuse and
mislead this Court by comparing the judgement
of the Trial Court with the findings of the
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Enquiry Authority, as both are independent of
each other.
14.18. The contention that the Hon'ble Upalokayukta
had already made up its mind upon the guilt of
the Petitioner despite the decision of the Trial
Court, by conducting another enquiry in
disciplinary proceedings is wholly erroneous on
account of the type of proof required to prove
charges in the respective proceedings; one
being a 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and
the other being the 'Preponderance of
Probability'.
14.19. The charge of misconduct by the Petitioner
having been proven by the adducing of oral and
documentary evidence by the Disciplinary
Authority, the finding having been proved by
strong material, there being no merits in the
claims of the instant petition, the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 3
15. Sri. A. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No. 3, would submit that:
15.1. The Petitioner was provided adequate
opportunities to defend himself during the
proceedings, and the enquiry officer has
conducted the entire proceedings in the most
fair and justifiable manner.
15.2. Respondent No.3 has taken its decision upon
examining the report of the enquiry officer,
recommendations of the Uplalokayukta and also
the reply furnished by the Petitioner to final
show cause notice. Having found sufficient and
sound evidence, it was held that the Petitioner
was guilty of the charges levelled against him
and thus terminated from service.
15.3. The orders passed in criminal proceedings do
not have a bearing on Departmental Enquiry,
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
and both cannot be considered to be
overlapping each other.
15.4. The Departmental Enquiry against the
Petitioner was on the charge of - Dereliction of
duty, negligence, loss caused to the Board and
non-performance of his official duties, etc. The
criminal Prosecution, however, was to ascertain
the criminality of the offences contemplated
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
IPC and CrPC.
15.5. In this background, the Petitioner cannot seek
to take shelter under the acquittal in criminal
proceedings to ward off his liabilities in the
Departmental Enquiry, which is based on Rules
of Service and other internal regulations.
15.6. The proceedings against the Petitioner have
been conducted in accordance with Regulation
12 (A)(1)(a)(i) of the KEB Employees
Regulations, 1987 and further, the investigation
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
of the Upalokayukta was entrusted in
accordance with Section 12 of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984.
15.7. The Respondent No.3 authority, upon perusal of
the nature and extent of the allegation, may
either conduct its own enquiry via a Disciplinary
Authority under Regulation 11 or may entrust
the same to the Lokayukta / Upa-lokayukta.
15.8. The said Regulation 11 of the KEB Employees'
Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal
Regulations, 1987, (for short, 'Regulations') is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Regulation 11
PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MAJOR PENALTIES
1) No order imposing any of the penalties
specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Regulation
9 shall be made except after an enquiry
held, as far as may be, in the manner
provided in this Regulation and Regulation
11(A).
2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the
opinion that there are grounds for inquiring
into the truth of any imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviours against a
Board employee, it may itself enquire into,
or appoint under this Regulation an
authority to inquire into the truth thereof.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Explanation:- Where the disciplinary
authority itself holds the inquiry, any
reference in sub- Regulation (7) to sub-
regulation (20) and in sub-regulation (22)
to the inquiry authority shall be construed
as a reference to the disciplinary authority.
3) Where it is proposed to hold an Inquiry
against a Board employee under this
Regulation and Regulation 11 (A), the
disciplinary authority shall draw up or
caused to be drawn up.
i) the substance of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour into
difinite and distinct articles of charge.
ii) a statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misconduct in support
of each article of charge, which shall
contain, -
a) a statement of all relevant facts
including any admission or
confession made by
the Board employee;
b) a list of documents by which, and
list of witnesses by whom the
articles of charge are proposed to
be sustained.
4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to the Board
employee a copy of the articles of charge, a
statement of the imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour and a list of documents and
witnesses by which each articles of charges
is proposed to be sustained and shall
require the Board employee submit, within
such time as may be specified, a written
statement of his defence and to state
whether he desires to be heard in person.
5) a) On receipt of the written statement of
defence the disciplinary authority may itself
inquire into such of the articles of charge as
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
are not admitted or if it considers it
necessary so to do appoint, under sub-
regulation (2) an inquiring authority for the
purpose and where all the articles of charge
have been admitted by the Board employee
in his written statement of defence, the
disciplinary authority shall record its
findings on each charge after taking such
evidence as it may think fit and shall act in
the manner laid down in Regulation 11 (A).
b) If no written statement of defence is
submitted by the Board employee, the
disciplinary authority may itself inquire into
the articles of charge or may, if it considers
necessary to do so, appoint, under sub-
regulation (2) an inquiry authority
for the purpose.
c) Where the disciplinary authority itself
inquiries into any article of charge or appoints
an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into
such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a
Board employee or a legal practitioner to be
known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on
its behalf the case in support of the articles of
charge.
6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is
not the inquiring authority, forward to the
inquiring authority.
i) a copy of the articles of charge and the
statement of the imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour;
ii) a copy of the written statement of
defence, if any, submitted by the Board
employee;
iii) a copy of the statements of witnesses if
any, referred to in sub-regulation (3);
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
iv) evidence proving the delivery of the
documents referred to in sub-regulation (3)
to the Board employee; and
v) a copy of the order appointing the
"Presenting Officer."
Provided that where the Disciplinary
Authority appoints under sub-regulation (2)
an officer of the Loka Ayuktha as the
inquiring authority such officer, may, if in
his opinion it is considered necessary so to
do, alter or modify the articles of charge,
the statement of imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour, the list of documents, and
list of witnesses and deliver or cause to be
delivered to the Board employee a copy of
these under intimation to the disciplinary
authority and shall require the Board
employee to submit within such time as
may be specified a written statement of his
defence and to state whether he desires to
be heard in person.
7) The Board employee shall appear in person
before the inquring authority on such day
and at such time within ten working days
from the date of receipt by him of the
articles of charge and the statement of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
as the inquiring authority may, be a notice
in writing, specify in this behalf, or within
such further time, not exceeding ten days,
as the inquring authority may allow.
8) The Board employee may take the
assistance of any other Board employee to
present the case on his behalf, but may not
engage a legal practitioner for the purpose
unless the presenting officer appointed by
the disciplinary authority is a legal
practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority,
having regard to the circumstances of the
case, so permits.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
i) provided that if the retired Board
employee is also a legal practitioner, the
Board employee shall not engage such
persons unless the presenting officer
appointed by the disciplinary authority is a
legal practitioner and the disciplinary
authority having regard to the
circumstances of the case so permits.
ii) A co-employee shall represent as a
defence counsel in one inquiry at a time.
However, he shall not be permitted as a
defence counsel in more than two enquiries
in a calendar year. During the pendency of
an inquiry he shall not be permitted to
appear as defence counsel in any other
inquiry. The defence counsel shall declare
accordingly before seeking permission.
9) If the Board employee who has not
admitted any of the articles of charge in his
written statement of defence or has not
submitted any written statements of
defence, appears before the inquiring
authority, such authority shall ask him
whether he is guilty or has any defence to
make and if he pleads guilty to any of the
articles of charge, the inquring authority
shall record the plea, sign the record and
obtain the signature of the Board employee
thereon.
10) The inquiring authority shall return a
finding of guilt in respect of those articles of
charge to which the Board employee pleads
guilty.
11) The inquiring authority shall, if the Board
employee fails to appear within the specified
time or refuses or omits to plead, require
the presenting officer to produce the
evidence by which he proposes to prove the
articles of charge, and shall adjourn the
case to a later date not exceeding thirty
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
days, after recording an order that the
Beard employee may, for the purpose of
preparing his defence;
i) inspect within five days of the order or
within such further time not exceeding five
days as the inquiring authority may allow
the documents specified in the list referred
to in sub regulation (3);
ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined
on his behalf;
iii) apply orally or in writing to inspect and
take extracts of the statements, if any of
witnesses mentioned in the list referred to
in sub-regulation (3) and the inquiring
authority shall permit him to take such
extracts as early as possible and in any case
not later than three days before the
commencement of the examination of the
witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary
authority.
iv) give a notice within ten days of the order
or within such further time not exceeding
ten days as the inquiring authority may
allow for the discovery or production of any
documents which are in the possession of
Board but not mentioned in the list referred
to in sub- Regulation (3) :-
Provided that the Board employee shall
indicate the relevance of the documents
required by him to be discovered or
produced by the Board.
12) The inquring authority shall, on receipt of
the notice for the discovery or production of
documents, forward the same or copies
thereof to the authority in whose custody or
possession the documents are kept, with a
requisition for the production of the
document by such date as may be specified
in such requisition : Provided that the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
inquiring authority may, for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, refuse to
requisition such of the documents as are, in
its opinion, not relevant to the case.
13) On receipt of the requisition referred to in
sub-regulation (12), every authority having
the custody or possession of the
requisitioned documents shall produce the
same before the inquiring authority;
Provided that if the authority having the
custody or possession of the requisitioned
documents is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing that the production
of all or any of such documents would be
against the public interest or security of the
Board, it shall inform the inquiring authority
accordingly and the inquiring authority
shall, on being so informed, communicate
information to the Board employee and
withdraw the requisition made by it for the
production or discovery of such documents.
14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral
and documentary evidence by which the
articles of charge are proposed to be proved
shall be produced by or on behalf of the
disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall
be examined by or on behalf of the
presenting officer and may be cross-
examined by or on behalf of the Board
employee. The presenting officer shall be
entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any
points on which they have been cross-
examined, but not on any new matter,
without the leave of the inquiring authority.
The inquiring authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
15) If it shall appear necessary before the close
of the case on behalf of the disciplinary
authority, the inquiring authority may, in its
discretion, allow the presenting officer to
produce evidence not included in the list
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
given to the Board employee or may itself
call for new evidence or recall and re-
examine any witness and in such case the
Board employee shall be entitled to have, if
he demands it, a copy of the list of further
evidence proposed to be produced and an
adjournment of the inquiry for three clear
days before the production of such new
evidence, exclusive of the day of
adjournment and the day to which the
inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority
shall give the Board employee an
opportunity of inspecting such documents
before they are taken on the record. The
inquiring authority may also allow the Board
employee to produce new evidence, if it is
of the opinion that the production of such
evidence is necessary in the interest of
justice.
NOTE: New evidence shall not be permitted
or called for or no witness shall be recalled
to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such
evidence may be called for only when there
is an inherent lacuna or defect in the
evidence which has been produced
originally.
16) When the case for the disciplinary authority
is closed the Board employee shall be
required to state his defence, orally or in
writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is
made orally, it shall be recorded and the
Board employee shall be required to sign
the record. In either case a copy of the
statement of defence shall be given to the
presenting officer, if any, appointed.
17) The evidence on behalf of the Board
employee shall then be produced. The
Board employee may examine himself in his
own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses
produced by the Board employee shall then
be examined and shall be liable to cross
examination, re-examination and
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
examination by the inquiring authority
according to the provision applicable to the
witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
18) The inquiring authority may, after the
Board employee closes his case, and shall, if
the Board employee has not examined
himself, generally question him on the
circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence for the purpose of enabling the
Board employee to explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him.
19) The inquring authority may, after the
completion of the production of evidence,
hear the presenting officer, if any,
appointed and the Board employee, or
permit them to file written briefs of their
respective case, if they so desire.
20) If the Board employee to whom a copy of
the articles of charges has been delivered,
does not submit the written statement of
defence on or before the date specified for
the purpose or does not appear in person
before the inquiring authority or other wise
fails or refuses to comply with the
provisions of this Regulation, at any stage of
the enquiry the inquiring authority may hold
the inquiry ex-parte.
21) a) Where a disciplinary authority competent
to impose any of the penalties specified in
cluases (i) to (iv-a) of Regulation 9 but not
competent to impose any of the penalties
specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Regulation
9 has itself inquired into or caused to be
inquired into the articles of any charge and
that authority having regard to its own
findings or having regard to its own decision
on any of the findings of any inquiring
authority appointed by it, is of the opinion
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to
(viii) of Regulation 9 should be imposed on
the Board employee, that authority shall
forward the records of the inquiry to such
disciplinary authority as is competent to
impose the last mentioned penalties.
b) The disciplinary authority to which the
records are so forwarded may act on the
evidence on the record or may, if it is of the
opinion that further examination of any of
the witnesses is necessary in the interests
of justice recall the witness and examine,
cross-examine and re-examine the
witnesses and may impose on the Board
employee such penalty as it may deem fit in
accordance with these Regulations.
22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after
having heard and recorded the whole or any
part of the evidence in an enquiry ceases to
exercise jurisdiction therein and is
succeeded by another inquiring authority
which has, and which exercises such
jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so
succeeding may act on the evidence so
recorded by its predecessor or partly
recorded by its predecessors and partly
recorded by itself:
Provided that if the succeeding inquiry
authority is of the opinion that further
examination of any witnesses whose
evidence has already been recorded is
necessary in the interest of justice, it may
recall, examine, cross-examine and re-
examine any such witnesses as here in
before provided.
23) i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a
report shall be prepared and it shall contain
-
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
a) the articles of charge and the statement
of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour;
b) the defence of the Board employee in
respect of each article of charge;
c) an assessment of the evidence in respect
of each / article of charge;
d) the findings on each article of charge and
the reasons therefore.
Explanation: If in the opinion of the
inquiring authority the proceeding of the
inquiry establish any articles of the charge
different from the original articles of the
charge, it may record its findings on such
article of charge;
Provided that the findings on such article of
charge shall not be recorded unless the Board
employee has either admitted the facts on which
such article of charge is based or has had a
reasonable opportunity of defending himself
against such article of charge.
ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself
the disciplinary authority shall forward to the
disciplinary authority the record of inquiry which
shall include -
a) the report prepared by it under clause (i)
b) the written statement of defence, if any,
submitted by the Board employee;
c) the oral and documentary evidence produced
in the course of the inquiry.
d) written briefs, if any, filed by the presenting
officer or the Board employee or both during the
course of the inquiry; and
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary
authority and the inquiring authority in regard to
the inquiry.
11. (A) ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT.
The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the
inquiring authority may, for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the
inquiring authority for further inquiry and report
and the inquiring authority shall thereupon
proceed to hold the further inquiry according to
the provisions of Regulation 11 as far as may be
2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees
with the findings of the inquiring authority on any
article of charge record its reasons for such
disagreement and record its own findings on such
charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for
the purpose.
3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to
its findings on all or any of the articles of charge
is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties
specified in Regulation 9 should be imposed on
the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Regulation 12, make an
order imposing such penalty.
15.9. By referring to Regulation 11, he submits that a
detailed procedure which has been prescribed
under Regulation 11 has been followed by the
disciplinary authority as also by the enquiring
authority. There is no fault found in reference
thereto.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
15.10. The said Regulation 14 (A)(1)(a) to (e) of the
KEB Employees' Classification, Disciplinary
Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference
14.(A) SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN
CASES OF MISCONDUCT
1) The following provisions shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in
Regulations 10 to 11 (A) and 13 be
applicable for purposes of proceeding
against Board employees whose alleged
misconduct has been investigated into by
the Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta /
UpaLokayukta either suo-moto or on a
reference from the Board or from any other
authority, viz.
a) where on investigation into any allegation
against -
i) a member of the Board services
Group A, B, C or D in respect of an
allegation of a serious nature; the
Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta /
Upa Lokayukta or any Officer of the
Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta /
Upa Lokayukta authorised by him in
writing under sub-rule 2 of Rule 5 of
Karnataka State Vigilance
Commission's Rules 1980 / Rule 12 of
the Karnataka-Lokayukta / Upa
Lokayukta Act 1984 is of the opinion
that disciplinary proceedings shall be
taken, he shall forward the record of
investigation along with his
recommendations to the Board, and
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
the Board after examining such
records, may either direct an inquiry
into the case by the Vigilance
Commission/ Lokayukta / Upa
Lokayukta or direct the appropriate
disciplinary authority to take action in
accordance with-Regulation 11.
b) Where the Vigilance
Commission/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta is
directed to hold an inquiry into a case
under clause(a) the inquiry may be
conducted either by the Vigilance
Commissioner/ Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta
or by an officer of the Vigilance
Commission/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta
authorised by the Vigilance
Commissioner/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta
to conduct the enquiry.
Provided that the inquiry of a case
relating to a Board employee shall not be
conducted by an officer lower in rank
than that of such Board employee;
c) The Vigilance
Commissioner/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta
or the officer authorised to conduct the
inquiry under clause(b) shall conduct the
inquiry in accordance with the provisions
of sub-regulation (2) to (20) and sub-
regulation (23) of Regulation 11 and for
the purposes of conducting such inquiry,
shall have the power of the disciplinary
authority referred to in the said
Regulation.
d) After the inquiry is completed, the
records of the case with the findings of
the inquiry officer and the
recommendations of the Vigilance
Commissioner/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta
shall be sent to the Board.
e) On receipt of the records under clause
(d), the Board shall take action in
accordance with the provisions of sub-
regulation (21) and sub-regulation (23)
of Regulation 11 and Regulation 11(A),
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
and in all such cases the Board shall be
competent to impose any of the penalties
specified in Regulation 9.
Explanation: In this Regulation, the
expressions 'Vigilance
Commission/Lokyukta/Upa Lokayukta'
and 'Vigilance
Commissioner/Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta'
shall respectively have the meanings
assigned to them in the respective
Rules/Act and further amendments made
to the above from time to time.
15.11. By referring to Regulation 14A, he submits that
there is a special procedure which has been
prescribed in certain cases of misconduct, and if
the investigation is done by the Vigilance
Commission / Lokayukta / Upa-lokayukta,
either suo-moto or on a reference from the
Board or by any authority, the Upa-lokayukta,
as in the present case being of the opinion that
disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, has
forwarded a record of investigation along with
his recommendation to the Board. The Board,
after examining such records, could either
direct an inquiry by the Vigilance Commission /
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
Lokayukta / Upa-lokayukta or direct the
appropriate disciplinary authority to take action
in accordance with Regulation 11. On such
enquiry being completed, the records of the
case with the finding of the enquiry officer and
the recommendation of the Upa-lokayukta is
required to be sent to the Board [in terms of
14(A)(1)(d)] and the Board shall take action in
accordance with provisions of sub-regulation
(21) and sub-regulation (23) of Regulation 11
and the Board would be competent to impose
any of the penalties specified in Regulation 9.
15.12. He refers to Section 12 of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- (1) If, after
investigation of any action 1[ x x x ]1 involving
a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or
an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such action
has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to
the complainant or to any other person, the
Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, by a
report in writing 2[within three months or at
any event not later than four months from the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
date of complaint,]2 recommend to the
competent authority concerned that such
injustice or hardship shall be remedied or
redressed in such manner and within such time
as may be specified in the report.
(2) The competent authority to whom a report
is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one
month of the expiry of the period specified in
the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to
the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action
taken on the report.
(3) If, after investigation of any action 1[XXX]1
involving an allegation has been made, the
Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that
such allegation 2[ is substantiated]2 either
wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing
3[within six months from the date of
commencement of the investigation]3,
communicate his findings and
recommendations along with the relevant
documents, materials and other evidence to
the competent authority. 3 [Provided that, the
Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may extend the
said period by a further period of not exceeding
six months for the reasons to be recorded in
writing]
(4) The Competent authority shall examine the
report forwarded to it under sub-section (3)
and within three months of the date of receipt
of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated
to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the
action taken or proposed to be taken on the
basis of the report.
(5) If the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is
satisfied with the action taken or proposed to
be taken on his recommendations or findings
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall
close the case under information to the
complainant, the public servant and the
competent authority concerned; but where he
is not so satisfied and if he considers that the
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
case so deserves, he may make a special
report upon the case to the Governor and also
inform the competent authority concerned and
the complainant.
(6) The Lokayukta shall present on or before
31st October of every year, a consolidated
report on the performance of his functions and
that of the Upalokayukta under this Act to the
Governor.
(7) On receipt of the special report under sub-
section (5), or the annual report under sub-
section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy
thereof together with an explanatory
memorandum to be laid before each House of
the State Legislature.
(8) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may at
his discretion make available, from time to
time, the substance of cases closed or
otherwise disposed of by him which may
appear to him to be of general, public,
academic or professional interest in such
manner and to such persons as he may deem
appropriate.
15.13. By referring to Section 12 of K.L.Act, he
submits that the said Section provides for the
manner in which reports are to be submitted by
the Lokayukta. The report being as envisaged
in Regulation 14(A) detailed above. The
Lokayakta or the Upa-lokayukta, if satisfied that
the action on part of an officer has resulted in
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
injustice or undue hardship to the complainant
or to any other person, then a report to that
effect shall be submitted in writing within three
months to the competent authority within three
months to the competent authority. The
competent authority shall consider the same
and report to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta
the action taken on the report.
15.14. The enquiry officer, upon a proper enquiry of
Ex. P.7 has submitted that there are
inconsistencies in the claim made by the
Petitioner as regards the transaction of a hand
loan, subsequent demands for repayment, the
complainant developing a grudge, and in that
regard, filing a complaint before the Lokayukta
and hence the same cannot be given any
credence.
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
15.15. The enquiry officer has also considered the
evidence of the shadow witness - PW 2, who
has supported the mahazars recorded.
15.16. Having utterly failed to disprove all the above,
the enquiry officer, on a fair consideration, has
held that the Petitioner is guilty as regards the
charges levelled against him.
15.17. The Petitioner, not having disclosed the real and
true facts, not approaching this Court with
clean hands, not holding any locus standi and
merits in the instant petition, he persuades this
Court to dismiss the petition with costs.
16. Heard Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Sri.V.S.Arabatti, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.A.Chandrachud,
learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Perused
papers.
D. Points for Consideration
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
17. Upon hearing all the concerned parties and perusing
the relevant material on record, the points that
would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the decision of the learned Trial
Court dated 30.03.2013 is binding upon
the Respondent No.3-Authority and
subsequently the Disciplinary Committee?
2. Whether the Disciplinary Proceedings
initiated by Respondent No.3-Authority
can run parallelly to the criminal
proceedings before the learned Trial
Court?
3. Whether the recommendation letter dated
03.09.2014 issued by Respondent No.1-
Upa-lokayukta and the subsequent
entrustment of investigation to the
Additional Registrar Enquiries, Karnataka
Lokayukta can be held to be valid in law?
4. Whether the decision taken by the
Respondent No.3-Board Committee dated
18.03.2015 dismissing the Petitioner from
service, requires any interference at the
hands of this Court?
5. What order?
18. I answer the above points as under:
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
19. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether the decision of
the learned Trial Court dated 30.03.2013 is
binding upon the Respondent No.3-Authority and
subsequently the Disciplinary Committee?
19.1. The Petitioner came to be acquitted by an order
of the Trial Court dated 30.03.2013 and, in that
regard, submits that the Trial Court has rightly
applied the principles of 'Proof Beyond
Reasonable Doubt' insofar as having delved
deep into the allegation and appreciating the
diverse evidence on record. Further, it is
contended that the findings of the Trial Court
are binding upon the Disciplinary forum in light
of a common set of facts, circumstances and
witnesses dealt in both proceedings.
19.2. Per Contra, Respondent No.3-Authority has
sought to contend that the Trial conducted was
in furtherance of an FIR registered under
provisions of the PC Act, 1988, whereas
departmental inquiry proceedings were initiated
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
to ascertain any violation in the rules of service
and conduct, thus both are distinct proceedings
not having a bearing on each other and are
independent procedures.
19.3. Reference is to be drawn to the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs
Sardar Bahadur2, more particularly para no.
16 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
16. A finding cannot be characterised as
perverse or unsupported by any relevant
materials if it is a reasonable inference from
proved facts. Now what are the proved facts :
Nand Kumar as representative of M/s. Ram
Sarup Mam Chand and M/s. Mam Chand and
Company of Calcutta filed five applications for
licences to set up steel re-rolling mills on 14-
6-1956. On 25-6-56, a cheque drawn in
favour of P. S. Sundaram was given to the
respondent by Nand Kumar for Rs. 2,500/-;
the cheque was endorsed and the amount
credited in the account of the respondent.
When the respondent borrowed the amount in
question from Nand Kumar, he was not
working in the Industries Act Section. Nand
Kumar knew that the respondent was working
in the Steel & Cement Section of the Ministry
and the applications for the grant of licences
for setting up the steel plant re-rolling mills
would go to that Section. Even if the
applications were to be dealt with at the initial
2
1971 INSC 298
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
stage by the Industries Act Section the
respondent at least was expected to know that
in due course the Section in which he was
working had to deal with the same. This is
borne out by the fact that in July 1958 copies
of the applications were actually sent to the
Steel & Cement Section where the respondent
was working. If he, therefore, borrowed
money from Nand Kumar a few days earlier it
seems rather clear that he placed himself
under pecuniary obligation to a person who
was likely to have official dealings with him.
The words "likely to have official dealings"
take within their ambit the possibility of future
dealings between the officer concerned and
the person from whom he borrowed money.
A disciplinary preceding is not a criminal trial.
The standard proof required is that of
preponderance of probability and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that
Nand Kumar was a person likely to have
official dealings with the respondent was one
which reasonable person would draw from the
proved facts of the case, the High Court
cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision
based on it. Where there are some relevant
materials which the authority has accepted
and which materials may reasonably support
the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is
not the function of the High Court exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the
materials and to arrive at an independent
finding on the materials. If the enquiry has
been properly held the question of adequacy
or reliability of the evidence cannot be
canvassed before the High Court.
No doubt there was no separate finding on the
question whether Nand Kumar was a person
likely to have official dealings with the
respondent by the Inquiring Officer or the
President. But we think that such a finding
was implied when they said that charge No. 3
has been proved. The only question was
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
whether the proved facts of the case would
warrant such an inference. Tested in the light
of the standard of proof necessary to enter a
finding of this nature, we are satisfied that on
the material facts proved the inference and
the implied finding that Nand Kumar was a
person likely to have official dealings with the
respondent were reasonable.
19.4. A perusal of the extracted portion of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardar
Bahadur's case would categorically establish
the distinction between a criminal proceedings
and disciplinary proceedings. The burden of
proof in criminal proceedings being "beyond
reasonable doubt" whereas the burden of proof
in disciplinary proceedings being
"preponderance of probability".
19.5. In a criminal proceeding, the accused could also
be punished by way of imprisonment, thereby
resulting in loss of liberty and in order to
impose such a punishment, it is required to be
established that the accused has committed the
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
crime he is accused of beyond reasonable
doubt.
19.6. Insofar as disciplinary proceedings are
concerned, as indicated supra, the test and or
proof being "preponderance of probability",
what would be required to be considered is
whether it was probable for the delinquent
officer to have committed such delinquency.
19.7. In disciplinary proceedings, it would not be
required to establish beyond reasonable doubt
of the delinquency. Thus, it is clear that the
standard of proof in criminal proceedings and
disciplinary proceedings are entirely different.
19.8. Similar was the view in S. Samuthiram's case
where it was held that it was for the
Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and that such strict
burden of proof is not required in disciplinary
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
proceedings where a preponderance of
probabilities would suffice.
19.9. Applying the dicta laid down in both the above
decisions to the present facts, it is clear that
the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is
much higher than that in the disciplinary
proceedings and as such, if such standard of
proof in a criminal proceeding is not discharged
and the person is acquitted, the same would
not necessarily entail the dismissal of the
disciplinary proceedings against the very same
person. Since even if the Prosecution had failed
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, the disciplinary authority
could establish the delinquency by a
preponderance of probability.
19.10. Of course, the contra cannot be true inasmuch
as if a delinquent officer has been discharged in
a disciplinary inquiry, then the same would
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
naturally result in the criminal proceedings
being dismissed, since the burden of proof in
criminal proceedings is much higher than that
in disciplinary proceedings.
19.11. The standard of proof being different in both
the proceedings, the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that there would be
double standards which are applicable is not
correct since what is required to be decided is
completely different in a different context and
different perspective. The decision of the Trial
Court being rendered in criminal proceedings
where the burden of proof was beyond
reasonable doubt cannot therefore, apply to the
disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary
authority/committee where the burden of proof
is "preponderance of probability".
19.12. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the
decision of the trial Court in the criminal
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
proceedings is not binding on the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority can conduct
its own proceedings and determine whether the
concerned officer is guilty of the delinquency
alleged against him.
20. Answer to Point No. 2: Whether the Disciplinary
Proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3-
Authority can run parallelly to the criminal
proceedings before the learned Trial Court?
20.1. One of the contentions taken up by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner is that there would be
parallel proceedings, one before the Trial Court
and the other before the disciplinary authority,
and therefore, both are not maintainable. As
observed in my answer to Point No.1, the
distinction between criminal proceedings and
the disciplinary proceedings have been clearly
made out. Criminal proceedings are initiated for
violation of any penal statute, whereas
disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
disciplinary authority for any delinquency or
violation of the terms of service. Both of them
operate in two different fields. There is no
embargo on both the proceedings being
conducted simultaneously or parallelly. The
criminal proceedings are initiated by the State
to maintain law and order in the discharge of its
sovereign powers. Disciplinary proceedings
being initiated by the employer to maintain
discipline of its employees.
20.2. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that
Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by
Respondent No.3-Authority can run parallel to
the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court,
both operating in different spheres.
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
21. Answer to Point No. 3: Whether the
recommendation letter dated 03.09.2014 issued
by Respondent No.1- Upa-lokayukta and the
subsequent entrustment of investigation to the
Additional Registrar Enquiries, Karnataka
Lokayukta can be held to be valid in law?
21.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends
that it is unfair and questionable that the
prosecuting authority - Upa-lokayukta
themselves, are conducting the enquiry in
furtherance of its letter dated 03.09.2014
issued under section 12(3) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Respondent No.3-
KPTCL recommending to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the Petitioner.
21.2. The answer to this point is two-fold;
(i) On the legality of the recommendation of
the Upa-lokayukta dated 03.09.2014 vide
Annexure - F.
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
(ii) On the legality of entrustment of
investigation to the Upa-lokayukta by
Respondent No. 3 - KPTCL.
21.3. The Respondent-Upa-Lokayukta asserts that
the power to recommend disciplinary action is
drawn from Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984 (supra).
21.4. Clause 3 of Section 12 of the KL Act, 1984 is
reproduced herein-above says that upon
carrying out an investigation against a
grievance raised, if such an investigation goes
on to reasonably satisfy either the Lokayukta or
the Upa-lokayukta that the allegations made
against the complainee partly or wholly stands
substantiated, then the Lokayukta or the Upa-
lokayukta shall submit a report, in writing,
communicating his findings and
recommendations along with the relevant
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
material, documents and evidence collected to
the Competent Authority.
21.5. Further, it is pertinent to note that the design of
the provision itself is such that it mandates the
Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta to submit a report,
even if partly satisfied, as regards the
allegations against the complainee. A careful
reading of the provision would bring to clarity
that the word 'shall' is employed, and thus, it
would be incumbent upon the Lokayukta/Upa-
Lokayukta to submit the report dated
03.09.2014, thereby making the report valid in
law.
21.6. The disciplinary proceedings within the
Respondent No. 3-Authority are governed by
the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees'
Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal
Regulations, 1987. Learned counsel for
Respondent No. 3 submits that the entrustment
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
of inquiry/investigation to the Additional
Registrar Enquiries -3, Karnataka Lokayukta
was made under Regulation 14(A)(1)(a)(i) of
the KEB Regulations, 1987 (supra).
21.7. The said Regulation reproduced herein-above
stipulates that when a report upon investigation
of a serious allegation by the Vigilance
Commission / Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta is
submitted and is of the opinion to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against such a
complainee, then the Disciplinary Board may
either direct an inquiry into the case by the
Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upa-
Lokayukta or direct the appropriate disciplinary
authority to take action in accordance with
Regulation 11 of the KEB Regulations, 1987.
21.8. A bare and literal reading of the said provision
would elucidate that the disciplinary committee
has the power to direct an inquiry only to any
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
of the 3 investigative bodies mentioned therein,
namely, the Vigilance Commission, 'Lokayukta'
and the 'Upa-Lokayukta', further it may even
direct these bodies to take action against the
complainee under Regulation 11 if need be.
Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that the Lokayukta
and Upa-Lokayukta are statutorily enabled
bodies to undertake inquiry/investigation.
21.9. Both options of inquiry or action being available
and open to Respondent No. 3-KPTCL, it has
chosen to exercise its statutorily granted
discretion to conduct an investigation/inquiry
once again so as to ascertain the veracity of the
allegations raised against the Petitioner and has
directed Respondent No.3 to conduct such
inquiry vide order dated 04.02.2010, and
Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.08.2010
in turn has nominated Respondent No. 2 -
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
'Additional Registrar of Enquires - 3' as its
inquiry officer.
21.10. A conjoint reading of Section 12 of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and Regulation
14 of the KEB Regulations, 1987 would amply
justify the actions taken inasmuch as the report
dated 03.09.2014 filed by the Upa-Lokayukta
and the subsequent entrustment of inquiry vide
order dated 04.02.2010 is concerned.
21.11. Hence, I answer Point No. 3 by holding that the
report submitted by Respondent No. 3-
Authority and subsequent entrustment of
investigation to Respondent No. 2 and 3 is valid
in law.
22. Answer to Point No. 4: Whether the decision
taken by the Respondent No.3-Board Committee
dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the Petitioner from
service, requires any interference at the hands of
this Court?
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
22.1. The scope and object of criminal and
departmental proceedings remain distinct, with
each of them being governed under two
separate sets of laws and the rules of
appreciation of evidence being different from
the degree of proof necessary to establish the
commission of a penal offence from that of
delinquency, respectively.
22.2. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate
that the complainant was an electrical
contractor and had given a complaint on 28-12-
2007 against the DGO stating that he had given
an application to the DGO for supply of
electricity to his clients and when he contacted
the complainant as regards the action taken,
the DGO demanded Rs.1,500/-. On the basis of
said complaint, the Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Chickballapur had registered a case
in Crime No.2/2007 under Section 7, 13 (1)(d)
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C.Act 1988,
where a charge sheet has been filed after
investigation.
22.3. The Upa-Lokayukta had also sent an
observation note to the DGO and sought his
explanation as to why disciplinary action should
not be initiated. Response of the DGO having
been submitted on 30.4.2009, denying the
allegation, the Upa-lokayukta was of the
opinion that the proceedings cannot be dropped
and submitted a report under subsection (3) of
Section 12 of the K.L.Act to the competent
authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the DGO. There is no allegation or
contention during the course of arguments as
regards any violation of the procedure of
enquiry. The DGO admitted that the
complainant was known to him and stated that
the complainant had sought for some money
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
for a sum of Rs.1,500/- for his family necessity,
which the DGO had advanced, and it is that
amount which had been returned. There is no
demand for bribe or acceptance as a bribe for
the said amount of Rs.1,500/-. The payment of
Rs.1,500/- being as a return of loan was
properly accepted by the DGO.
22.4. A perusal of the documents on record would
indicate and establish that the complainant was
an electrical contractor. He had submitted three
applications for electric connections to the DGO.
The DGO had pointed out certain defects in the
said application and on that ground, an
electricity connection was not given. The
contention of the complainant in this regard is
that in order to overlook these deficiencies, the
DGO had demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- and it
is at that stage that he had approached the
Lokayukta police with a complaint and in that
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
background, a trap was laid. The complainant
was given three notes of 500 rupees each with
phenolphthalein powder applied to it and it is
these notes which were handed over by the
complainant to the DGO, who took the said
notes and put it in his pocket. Thereafter, the
hands of DGO was washed in the chemical
solution, which changed colour to rose colour.
The contention of DGO is that since there were
inadequacies or defects in the application filed,
an electricity connection was not given. Hence,
the question of a demand for a bribe being
made would not arise.
22.5. I am unable to accept this submission. If the
documents were in order and the applications
submitted were proper, then it would have been
the bounden duty on the part of the DGO to
make available the electricity connection. The
fact that there were certain defects in the
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
application give credence to the contention of
the complainant that in order to overlook the
said defects, the DGO had demanded a bribe
amount.
22.6. As regards the contention of the DGO that, he
had earlier advanced the sum of Rs.1,500/- as
a hand loan, which came to be repaid by the
complainant. It is also not acceptable firstly for
the reason that there are no details as to when
the DGO had advanced a sum of Rs.1,500/- to
the complainant, more so when the same has
been denied. The fact remains that the DGO
has accepted Rs.1,500/- and on a search, the
said amount was found in the pocket of the
DGO. The above actions have been witnessed
by the panchas and the shadow witness who
have signed the mahazhar.
22.7. What is required to be considered only is the
explanation of the DGO as regards the receipt
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
of the monies by contending that there was no
demand for bribe made nor was there
acceptance. Taking into account that the
applications were defective, the allegation of
the complainant that the DGO had demanded
an amount of Rs.500/- per application would
have to be believed, thus establishing the
demand made. This being coupled with the fact
that the amount was received by the DGO and
found in his pocket. If at all it was a simple loan
transaction, then the DGO should have received
the money the first time the complainant went
to give the money. At that time, the DGO asked
the complainant to come back later since there
were too many people. Thus, again establishing
the fact that the DGO did not want to take the
money in front of the other people.
22.8. These facts satisfy the requirement of
preponderance of probability to establish that
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
the DGO had demanded the money and had
received the money. The money being found
with him, the delinquency which had been
established by the disciplinary authority, and
the charges which had been framed in the
disciplinary proceedings that the DGO had
demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.1,500/- from the complainant for doing
certain official work has been established by a
preponderance of probabilities.
22.9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of GM Tank vs. State of Gujarat
and another, more particularly Paras 31, 32
and 34 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
31. The judgments relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents are not
distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case,
the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case are based on identical and similar set of
facts and the charge in a Departmental case
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
against the appellant and the charge before the
Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true
that the nature of charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal case is grave.
The nature of the case launched against the
appellant on the basis of evidence and material
collected against him during enquiry and
investigation and as reflected in the charge
sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same.
In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same. In the
present case, criminal and departmental
proceedings have already noticed or granted on
the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at
the appellant's residence, recovery of articles
therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B.
Raval and other departmental witnesses were the
only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer
who by relying upon their statement came to the
conclusion that the charges were established
against the appellant. The same witnesses were
examined in the criminal case and the criminal
Court on the examination came to the conclusion
that the Prosecution has not proved the guilt
alleged against the appellant beyond any
reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by
his judicial pronouncement with the finding that
the charge has not been proved. It is also to be
noticed the judicial pronouncement was made
after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under
these circumstances, it would be unjust and
unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings
recorded in the departmental proceedings to
stand.
32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the
Department as well as criminal proceedings were
the same without there being any iota of
difference, the appellant should succeed. The
distinction which is usually proved between the
departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of the approach and burden of proof would
not be applicable in the instant case. Though
finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was
found to be valid by the Courts below, when
there was an honourable acquittal of the
employee during the pendency of the
proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same
requires to be taken note of and the decision in
Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We,
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed.
34. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the
judgment and order dated 28.1.2002 passed by
the learned single Judge in Special Civil appln.
No. 948 of 1983 as affirmed by the Division
Bench in L.P.A. No. 1085 of 2002 and allow this
appeal. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
22.10. By relying on GM Tank's decision, learned
counsel for the Petitioner has contended that
when departmental proceedings and criminal
cases are based on identical or similar sets of
facts without any iota of difference, the
honourable acquittal in criminal proceedings
would have to be taken note of in disciplinary
proceedings. These aspects have been dealt
with by me hereinabove and I have come to a
conclusion that by considering the facts of the
matter and by applying the rules of
preponderance of probability, the disciplinary
authority has established the delinquency on
part of the Petitioner. The fact situation in GM
tank's case and the present case are different
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20325
WP No. 21835 of 2015
HC-KAR
and the same would not be applicable to the
present case.
22.11. In that view of the matter, I answer Point No.4
by holding that the decision of the disciplinary
committee is proper and valid and does not
require any interference at the hands of this
Court.
23. Answer to Point No.5: What order?
23.1. In view of my answer to Point Nos. 1 to 4, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i) No grounds being made out, the Writ Petition
stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
BSM/PRS
