- 1 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 24349 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O DUNDAPPA NANDIHALLI EXCISE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA - 577 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL OF R SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DR. B.R AMBEDKAR ROAD M.S BUILDING, KARNATAKA - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1, SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS OR ORDERS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 4021/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE - A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant assailing the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in Application No.4021/2019, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner and upheld the enquiry report dated 25.09.2017, the recommendation made by the Lokayukta, and the Government Order dated 27.06.2019 whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, to the extent necessary for consideration and disposal of the present writ petition, are that - 3 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 the petitioner, while serving as an Excise Inspector at Udupi, was subjected to a trap proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta Police on 29.12.2010 on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant, Sri Uday H. Shetty, for refraining from initiating action against the bar and restaurant being run by him. Pursuant thereto, the Government, in exercise of its powers under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer framed the following imputation of charge against the petitioner: "CHARGE: That you DGO Sri. Hanumanthappa S/o Dundappa Nandihalli, Excise Inspector, O/o DC of Excise, Abakari Bhavana, Udupi demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 5000/- on 29/12/2010 from complainant Sri Uday H. Shetty S/o Hiriyanna Shetty R/o Muthaurme Mane, Perdoor Post, Udupi for not filing a case against him for running Bar and restaurant in two cabins and counters, that is for doing an official act, and thereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus you are guilty of - 4 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966." 3. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was held and, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Enquiry Officer, by report dated 25.09.2017, recorded a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved and accordingly submitted the enquiry report to the Government. 4. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, a copy thereof was furnished to the petitioner and a second show-cause notice was issued calling upon him to submit his explanation. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Government, by order dated 27.06.2019, imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. In the interregnum, the petitioner came to be acquitted in the criminal proceedings arising out of the very same trap, i.e., Special Case No.18/2012 on the file of the Principal and Special Judge, Udupi, by judgment dated 08.03.2018. Thus, aggrieved by the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the recommendation made by the Lokayukta, and the consequential order of dismissal from - 5 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 service, the petitioner preferred Application No.4021/2019 before the Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs. 5. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, by its order dated 15.12.2021, dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P.Hegde, for learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Harisha. A.S. for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh Arabatti, appearing for respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta. Perused the records and the material placed before us. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, being contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the evidence adduced by DWs.1 to 3, as - 6 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 well as the documents marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-19, have neither been properly appreciated nor considered in their proper perspective, and that no cogent reasons have been assigned either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Tribunal for rejecting the defence version. 8. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW-1 is replete with material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements, rendering the same wholly unreliable. According to him, there is no legally acceptable evidence to establish the demand of illegal gratification, which constitutes the sine qua non for proving the charge. It is also contended that the alleged meeting between the complainant and the petitioner on 28.12.2010, i.e., a day prior to the trap, stands completely discredited by the defence evidence placed on record. It is further urged that the non-production of the alleged telephonic conversations and audio recordings, which are stated to have formed the basis for the trap proceedings, creates a serious dent in the case of the respondents and casts substantial doubt on the very genesis of the allegations. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner came to be acquitted by the Principal and Special Judge, Udupi in Spl. - 7 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 Case No.18/2012 on the same set of facts, evidence and witnesses and the said acquittal having attained finality, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been sustained. Learned Senior counsel would submit that where the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are founded on identical facts and common evidence, an acquittal in the criminal case would render the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings unsustainable. With these submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayukta support the impugned order and contend that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the evidence of the complainant, shadow witness and Investigating Officer clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner. The positive phenolphthalein test and recovery of tainted currency from the petitioner's drawer further substantiate the charge. It is contended that the defence evidence has been duly considered and rejected for valid reasons and that the - 8 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as affirmed by the Tribunal, are based on legal evidence and do not warrant interference. 11. It is further contended that the acquittal of the petitioner in Special Case No.18/2012 has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings, as the standard of proof applicable in a criminal trial is distinct from that governing departmental enquiries. It is submitted that acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto result in exoneration in disciplinary proceedings. According to the respondents, the strict rules of evidence are inapplicable to departmental enquiries and, unless prejudice is demonstrated, alleged procedural irregularities do not vitiate the enquiry. It is lastly contended that the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings for those recorded by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition. 12. In the light of the rival submissions and upon perusal of the records secured from the Tribunal, the following point arises for our consideration: - 9 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 "Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing Application No.4021/2019 and upholding the enquiry report dated 25.09.2017, the recommendation made by the Upa-Lokayukta and the Government Order dated 27.06.2019 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service?" 13. At the outset, it is seen that the trap was laid against the petitioner on 29.12.2010 and pursuant thereto, disciplinary proceedings were entrusted to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The enquiry officer has framed the article of charge as stated supra. 14. In support of the charge, the Presenting Officer examined three witnesses, namely, PW.1–the complainant, PW.2–the shadow witness, and PW.3–the Investigating Officer, and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.11. The petitioner, in addition to cross-examining the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority, entered defence and examined DWs.1 to 3. He also produced and got marked Exhibits D.1 to D.19 in support of his defence. 15. Upon a careful appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it emerges that PW.1, the complainant, has - 10 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 consistently deposed that the petitioner demanded a sum of ₹5,000/- as illegal gratification for refraining from initiating action against him for allegedly operating two counters in his bar and restaurant. PW.1 further stated that he lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police Station, Udupi, on 29.12.2010, which has been marked as Ex.P2. Pursuant thereto, an entrustment mahazar was drawn and a trap was laid in the office of the petitioner on the very same day. 16. According to PW.1, when he visited the office of the petitioner, the latter reiterated the demand for illegal gratification, whereupon the tainted currency notes were handed over and received by the petitioner, who kept the same in the drawer of his table. Immediately thereafter, the pre- arranged signal was given to the Lokayukta Police, who conducted the trap proceedings. The hands of the petitioner were subjected to phenolphthalein test, which yielded positive results, and the tainted currency notes were thereafter recovered from the drawer of his table and seized under mahazar, marked as Ex.P4. 17. The testimony of PW.1 finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of PW.2, the shadow witness, - 11 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 who has supported the case regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. PW.3, the Investigating Officer, has also deposed regarding the trap proceedings, the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the petitioner. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent and mutually corroborative, and clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner, as well as the recovery of the tainted currency notes from his possession. 18. The defence of the petitioner is that the complaint was motivated by malice, as he had previously initiated several cases against the complainant and, therefore, the latter, out of vengeance, lodged a false complaint against him. It is his specific case that, on the date of the incident, the complainant visited his office and forcibly shook his hands with the tainted currency notes, resulting in the phenolphthalein test yielding positive results. In support of this defence, the petitioner examined DWs.1 to 3, who were his colleagues and subordinates in the office. 19. Though DWs.1 to 3 have denied the alleged demand of illegal gratification and the meeting between the - 12 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 complainant and the petitioner, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the petitioner's office at his instance remains undisputed. Further, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to discredit their testimony regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount. Merely because the voice recordings were not produced, the evidence on record cannot be discarded, particularly when there is direct evidence establishing the charge. It is well settled that in disciplinary proceedings, the charge need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and can be held established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. 20. This Court is unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings on the basis of the same charge and substantially the same evidence, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained. The said issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, in SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD VS. INSPECTOR, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797. Paragraph No.19 of the said judgment, - 13 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case, reads thus: "19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This is what has been considered by the High - 14 - WP No. 24349 of 2021 Court in the impugned judgment in detail and needs no interference by this Court." 21. In the case on hand, as discussed above, a careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exhibits P.1 to P.11 clearly establishes the charge levelled against the petitioner. The said evidence has been duly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct proved, namely, acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant for refraining from taking action against him, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be disproportionate. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the enquiry report, the order of penalty, or the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the affirmative. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K