[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Registrar vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
Reserved on : 23.02.2026
Pronounced on : 11.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 35898 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS
signed by PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VINUTHA B S
Location: PUBLIC WORKS PORTS
High Court of INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
Karnataka
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI V. KALLAPPA,
S/O SRI B. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
No.3, CANAL DIVISION,
SINDHANUR-589128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.01.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION
No.681/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri. Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned AGA for respondent
No.1 and Sri.V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. This writ petition is filed by the Registrar, Karnataka
Lokayukta, assailing the order dated 04.01.2017 passed in
Application No.681/2012 by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, "the Tribunal").
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2,
while working as Executive Engineer in the PWD, Bidar Division,
-3-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
was subjected to a complaint alleging demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification. Pursuant thereto, a trap was laid by the
Lokayukta Police on 26.11.2005. Criminal proceedings were
initiated and Special Case No.5/2006 was registered, which
culminated in the acquittal of respondent No.2 by order dated
27.09.2010 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Bidar.
3.1 Subsequently, by Government Order dated 05.09.2011,
directions were issued to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against respondent No.2, and the matter was entrusted to the
Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules. The said
order of entrustment was challenged before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, by the impugned order, placing reliance on the order
of acquittal passed in the criminal proceedings, has set aside
the order of entrustment.
4. Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submits that disciplinary proceedings and
criminal prosecution operate in distinct fields and serve
different purposes. He contends that the criminal proceedings
were initiated to examine the allegation of illegal gratification
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas a
-4-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
disciplinary enquiry is concerned with the conduct of the
Government servant in the discharge of official duties.
4.1 It is further submitted that the standard of proof required
in criminal proceedings is entirely different from that applicable
in disciplinary enquiries. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, the Tribunal has committed an error in setting aside
the order of entrustment solely on the basis of the acquittal
recorded in the criminal case.
5. Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government
Advocate, appears for respondent No.1 and supports the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, seeks to justify the order passed by the
Tribunal.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it is evident that a complaint
was lodged alleging demand of illegal gratification. Pursuant
thereto, a trap was laid on 26.11.2005 and criminal
proceedings were initiated in Special Case No.5/2006. The
judgment of the Special Court is placed on record.
-5-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
7.1 On perusal of the order of acquittal, it is seen that the
complainant himself turned hostile and the panch witnesses did
not support the case of the prosecution. The Special Court, for
want of proof beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted respondent
No.2. The acquittal was not on the ground of total absence of
evidence, but on application of the strict principles of criminal
jurisprudence requiring proof of the offence beyond reasonable
doubt.
7.2 In disciplinary proceedings, however, the strict rules of
evidence are not applicable and the charge is required to be
established on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings
were at the stage of entrustment to the Lokayukta. An enquiry
officer was yet to be appointed and the articles of charge were
yet to be framed. Even before the initiation of such
proceedings, the Tribunal has prematurely interfered and set
aside the order of entrustment.
7.3 It was too early for the Tribunal, and that too in the
absence of any evidence being adduced in the disciplinary
proceedings, to hold that the same were without basis. It is a
settled position of law that the mere use of the expression
-6-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
"honourable acquittal" is not determinative of innocence. The
entire judgment, the nature of the evidence on record, and its
acceptability must be examined to ascertain whether the
acquittal was on merits after full appreciation of evidence or on
account of failure of proof.
8. In the present case, the acquittal is on account of failure
of the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable
doubt. Such an acquittal cannot, ipso facto, be construed as an
honourable acquittal so as to bar disciplinary proceedings.
9. Furthermore, it was wholly premature for the Tribunal to
conclude that the disciplinary proceedings were without any
evidentiary basis. At the stage of mere entrustment, such a
finding could not have been recorded. The conclusion arrived at
by the Tribunal, solely on the basis of the order of entrustment,
is therefore erroneous and unsustainable in law.
10. Having regard to the findings recorded by the Special
Court, it cannot be immediately concluded that there is no
material whatsoever to support the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings. At this stage, what would be the evidence that
would come on record is not known. Only on recording of
evidence, at the time of appreciation of evidence, the acquittal
-7-
WP No. 35898 of 2018
of the respondent is to be taken note of. In that view of the
matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to
be permitted to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry, wherein
respondent No.2 shall have ample opportunity to put forth his
defence in accordance with law.
11. As we have restored the order of entrustment entrusting
the enquiry, if the petitioner-Lokayukta faces any impediment
in issuing the articles of charge in view of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of
the KCSRs, the period from the date of filing of the application
before the Tribunal till the date of this order shall stand
excluded while computing the period under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii)
of the KCSRs. We clarify that, had the order of entrustment not
been challenged or interfered with by the Tribunal, the articles
of charge could have been validly issued. Therefore, the
interference by the Tribunal in setting aside the order of
entrustment, which we have now restored, cannot result in a
bar of limitation.
12. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order in Application No.681/2012 dated
04.01.2017 passed by Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru is set aside.
(iii) The impugned order of entrustment dated
05.09.2011 is restored.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to complete the enquiry in
not later than one year from today.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
