- 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, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS PORTS INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, 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) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 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: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - WP No. 35898 of 2018 (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