[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Lal Sab M Mundenavar on 20 February, 2026

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
                                                           WP No. 46925 of 2019
                                                        C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019

                     HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                             PRESENT
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                                               AND
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
                           WRIT PETITION NO.46925/2019 (S-KSAT)
                                           C/W
                           WRIT PETITION NO.6051/2019 (S-KSAT)

                    IN WP NO. 46925/2019

                    BETWEEN:

                    THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
                    (ENQUIRES-3)
                    KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
                    M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                    (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)


                    AND:

Digitally signed by 1.   MR. LALSAB M MUNDENAVAR
NANJUNDACHARI
                         S/O MOHAMAD ALI
Location: HIGH           AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                WORKING AS GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
                         KAPPALGUDDI, RAIBAG TALUK
                         BELAGAVI DISTRICT
                         RESIDING AT G P KAGADAL
                         SAUNDATTI TALUK
                         BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 213.

                    2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
                         DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
                         & PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING
                         BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
                                        WP No. 46925 of 2019
                                     C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019

 HC-KAR



3.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO
     UNDER SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
     & PANCHAYAT RAJ,
     M.S.BUILDING
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

4.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYAT
     D C OFFICE COMPOUND
     BELAGAVI - 590 001.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUDEEP B.K., ADV. FOR
 SRI G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R1
 SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3
 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION NO.6411/2017 DATED 03.08.2018 (ANNEXURE-C).


IN WP NO. 6051/2019

BETWEEN:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY THE
     SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
     DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
     & PANCHAYAT RAJ,
     M.S. BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO
     UNDER SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
     & PANCHAYAT RAJ,
     M.S. BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                              ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)
                              -3-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
                                       WP No. 46925 of 2019
                                    C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019

 HC-KAR



AND:

1.   LAL SAB M MUNDENAVAR
     SON OF MOHAMAD ALI
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     WORKING AS
     GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
     KAPPALAGUDDI, RAIBAG TALUK
     BELAGAVI DISTRICT
     RESIDING AT G.P.KAGADAL
     SAUNDATTI TALUK,
     BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 213.

2.   THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
     (ENQUIRIES-3)
     KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
     M.S.BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYAT
     D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND
     BELAGAVI - 590 001.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEEP B.K., ADV. FOR
 SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G. M., ADV. FOR R1
 SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2
 R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLS FOR RECORDS;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2018 IN APPLICATION
NO.6411/2017 [ANNEXURE-A] PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS APPLICATION NO.6411/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

       THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
          AND
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
                                  -4-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
                                             WP No. 46925 of 2019
                                          C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019

HC-KAR




                            ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

In both the writ petitions, petitioners i.e., the

Lokayukta as well as the State Authorities are before this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

questioning the order dated 03.08.2018 in Application

No.6411/2017 passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the

Tribunal'), allowing respondent No.1's application

questioning the order of penalty of compulsory retirement

dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-A7).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the

allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-

from the complainant one Sri.Ningappa Siddappa

Nidagundi on 25.08.2006, articles of charge dated

31.08.2012 (Annexure-A1) was issued to respondent

No.1. The Enquiry Officer of the petitioner Lokayukta on

conducting enquiry submitted his report dated 26.10.2015

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

holding that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the

charge against respondent No.1. The petitioner was issued

with second show cause notice dated 16.11.2015

enclosing the enquiry report and the respondent No.1 is

said to have submitted his reply on 11.01.2016. The

Disciplinary Authority by impugned order dated

15.12.2016 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement in

exercise of powers under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957

(for short, 'CCA Rules'). Questioning the said order of

compulsory retirement, the petitioner was before the

Tribunal in the above stated application and the Tribunal

under the impugned order dated 03.08.2018, allowed the

application and quashed the order of penalty of

compulsory retirement dated 15.12.2016. Questioning the

said order, the State Authorities as well as the Karnataka

Lokayukta are before this Court in these writ petitions.

3. It is also relevant to notice that on the same

allegation, criminal prosecution was lodged against

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

respondent No.1 in Special Case No.23/2007 on the file of

the IV Additional District Judge and Special Judge,

Belgaum, at Belgaum and by judgment dated 09.08.2010,

the respondent No.1 herein was convicted of the charges

for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for short, '1988 Act'). The respondent aggrieved by

such conviction filed criminal appeal No.2745/2010 before

this Court and this Court by judgment dated 26.09.2013

acquitted the respondent of the charges leveled against

him.

4. The Tribunal while allowing the respondent's

application and quashing the order of penalty of

compulsory retirement dated 15.12.2016, observed that

PW1 - complainant turned hostile and PW2 - panch

witness-has only stated in his evidence with regard to

entrustment of trap money. Further, it observed that the

Investigating Officer has not entered the witness box.

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

5. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate

Sri.K.R.Rajendra for State, learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna

Shetty for Lokayukta and learned counsel Sri.Sudeep.B.K.,

for Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent

No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

Sri.K.R.Rajendra as well as learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna

Shetty would submit that the Tribunal under impugned

order failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners

and erroneously allowed the application and quashed the

penalty order of compulsory retirement. Learned counsels

for the petitioners would submit that no strict rules of

evidence is applicable to the departmental proceedings

and charges could be proved on the principles of

preponderance of probabilities. There was sufficient

material to prove the charge against the respondent No.1.

Moreover, learned counsels would submit that the

respondent No.1 was convicted on the same charge,

however, he is acquitted in the appeal. When there is

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

some evidence, the same would be sufficient to prove the

charge and accordingly the Enquiry Officer has come to

the conclusion that the charges leveled against respondent

No.1 is proved. Thus, they would pray for allowing the writ

petitions.

7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Sudeep.B.K.,

appearing on behalf of Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 would support the order

passed by the Tribunal and further submit that it is a case

of no evidence. As such, the Tribunal is justified in

quashing the penalty order of compulsory retirement.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit

that PW1 has turned hostile and PW2 has only deposed

with regard to entrustment of trap money and there is no

evidence to prove the charge of demand and acceptance

of bribe. Further, learned counsel would submit that the

other panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer have

not been examined before the Disciplinary Authority. In

the above circumstances, learned counsel would submit

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application and

set aside the penalty order of compulsory retirement.

Hence, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition

papers, we are of the considered opinion that the

petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with

the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the

following reasons:

Normally, this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate

Authority and would not go into the evidence. However,

this Court would go into evidence only to find out as to

whether it is a case of no evidence or whether there is

some evidence to prove the charge. As contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, it is true that normally

in a departmental proceedings, strict rules of evidence

would not be applicable and charges could be proved on

the principles of preponderance of probabilities.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEPUTY

GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND

OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA1 has laid down

the principles for interfering with the proceedings in a

departmental proceeding by the High Courts under Article

226 of the Constitution of India and the scope of judicial

review in the matter of disciplinary enquiry and in the said

process at paragraphs 22, 23, 25 to 28, it has held as

follows:

"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of

(2021) 2 SCC 612

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13)

"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718: AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 :

(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-

Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."

10. In terms of the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court could interfere with the

order of penalty, if it is a case of no evidence. In the

instant case, there is no evidence to prove the charge i.e.,

demand and acceptance of bribe/illegal gratification of

Rs.1,000/-. The Disciplinary Authority has examined two

witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the complainant and

PW2 is one of the shadow witness. PW1 has turned hostile

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB

HC-KAR

and he has not supported the case of the Disciplinary