- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 10845 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. G VIJAYA AGED 56 YEARS W/O DR. C NAGARAJAIAH WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURES DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE FLOWER AUCTION CENTRE CHIKKANAHALLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572125. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.6161/2017 DATED 10.04.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2019 in Application No.6161/2017 whereunder, the entrustment order dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-A9) and Articles of Charge dated 06.07.2015 are quashed, on the ground that the second enquiry against the first respondent, on the same allegation and same incident is not permissible. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: A departmental proceedings by issuance of show- cause notice and Articles of Charge dated 15/16.10.2009 (Annexure-A1) was initiated against the first respondent. In the said charge memo, allegation against the first respondent was that the first respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one H.K.Meghashyam, for showing official favourism. After detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. Accepting the said report, the first respondent-State Government, under Government Order dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure-A12) exonerated the first respondent. In the meanwhile, on the same set of facts and on the complaint of the very same person i.e., Sri.H.K.Meghashyam, under impugned order dated 04.06.2015, the second respondent entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). In pursuance of the said entrustment, Articles of Charge dated 06.07.2015 was issued. Questioning the said entrustment order and Articles of Charge, the first respondent was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under impugned order dated 26.11.2019 allowed the application, holding that the subsequent Articles of Charge issued by the second respondent i.e., petitioner herein are one and the same in respect of the very alleged incident as the enquiry was already held, wherein the first respondent was exonerated, quashed both entrustment order as well as Articles of Charge. Questioning the same, the petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charges are different and before the petitioner-Lokayukta, the charge is very serious that too receiving bribe from the complainant Sri.H.K.Meghashyam for showing official - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 favourism and thereby there is failure on the part of the first respondent to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 also supports the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would pray for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The charge in terms of charge memo dated 15/16.10.2009 against the first respondent reads as follows: ²æêÀÄw f.«dAiÀÄ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ,(f¥À) UÀÄr§AqÉ gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÉ.¹.J¸ï.(¹¹J) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 11 gÀr zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 DgÉÆÃ¥À-1 ²æêÀÄw. f.«dAiÀÄ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) UÀÄr§AqÉ DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ C¢üãÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹gÀÄwÛÃj. ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ §ÄqÀªÀiÁgÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw. ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA.298 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ305 gÀ 9 JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.95000/-UÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ EzÀPÁÌV gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «ÄµÀ£ï AiÉÆÃd¤AiÀÄr ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸À©ìr ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.03.2008 gÀAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ²æà gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ JAlgï ¥ÉæöʸÀ¸ï, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV ¤ªÀð»¹gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ 94,880/-UÀ¼ÀÄ RZÁðVgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ©®è£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«AiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw. ¸ÀÄzsÀªÀÄt gÀªÀgÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.03.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀÅ vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.50,450/- UÀ¼À ¸Ë®¨sÀåPÉÌ CºÀðjgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj. vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£À «vÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.05.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ½UÉ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ²æêÀÄw. ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ gÀÆ.50,450/-UÀ¼À ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀzÉà ¤ªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ZÉPï «vÀj¸À®Ä ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj JA§ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ°è - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 ²æêÀÄw. ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt gÀªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä §½AiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ²æêÀÄw. ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ²æÃ.ºÉZï.PÉ.ªÉÄÃWÀ±ÁåA gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀzÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjzÁUÀ, gÀÆ. 10,000/-UÀ¼À ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ MvÁ۬ĹgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ ²æÃ.ºÉZï.PÉ.ªÉÄÃWÀ±ÁåA gÀªÀgÀÄ EµÀÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èªÉA¢zÀÝPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ gÀÆ.8,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.06.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀªÁV gÀÆ.2,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. G½zÀ gÀÆ.6,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.06.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ w½¹gÀÄwÛÃj. ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä EµÀÖ«®èzÀ ²æÃ.ºÉZï.PÉ.ªÉÄÃWÀ±ÁåA gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.06.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀA.8/2008 PÀ®A.7. 3(1)(r) gÉ/« 13(2) ¦.¹.PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988 gÀr ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ zÁR¯ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ CzÉà ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀ §¯ÉUÉ ¹QÌ©zÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß §A¢ü¹ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw ¤ÃªÀÅ NªÀð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.05.2008gÀAzÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ «vÀj¸ÀzÉà PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀUÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ²¸ÀÄÛPÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. F ªÉÄð£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉ.¹.J¸ï.(¹¹J) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3.1(i)(ii)(iii) £ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀÄwÛÃgÁzÀ PÁgÀt F DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 DgÉÆÃ¥À-2: ²æêÀÄw. f.«dAiÀÄ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) UÀÄr§AqÉ DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ C¢üãÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹gÀÄwÛÃj. ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ 2007-08 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «ÄµÀ£ï AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀiÁªÀÅ, ¨Á¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀĵÀà ¨ÉøÁAiÀÄUÁgÀjAzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀPÁÌV §AzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß J¯Áè DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¸Á¢¯ÁégÀÄ ©®Äè vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÉÄÃ®Ä ¸À» ºÁUÀÆ ZÉPï ¤ÃrPÉUÁV vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj. F jÃw ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹zÀ J¯Áè ¸Á¢¯ÁégÀÄ ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®Ä ¸À» ªÀiÁr ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ «vÀj¸À®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.03.2008, 18.03.2008 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 31.03.2008 gÀ°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀëöä ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£À PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÁ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ «vÀj¸À®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.05.2008 gÀ°è ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À°è vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁzÀ ZÉPïUÀ¼À°è gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «ÄµÀ£ï AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr 87 ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½AzÀ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÁ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯É ªÀiÁr ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀzÉà PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÆPÀëöä ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀr ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.05.2008 gÀ°è vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¸Á¢¯ÁégÀÄ ©¯ï ¸ÀASÉå:89/07/08 ¨Á§ÄÛ gÀÆ.409870/-UÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÀÝ 21 ZÉPÀÌUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ 9 ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉAUÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ReÁ£É¬ÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.03.2008gÀ°è - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 £ÀUÀ¢üÃPÀj¹zÀ 2 ZÉPïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ «vÀj¸ÀzÉà ¤ªÀÄä §½AiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.06.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f¥À) PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁ½ £ÀqɹzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ZÉPïUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ½AzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃw ¤ÃªÀÅ NªÀð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ «vÀj¸ÀzÉà ¤ªÀÄä §½AiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ²¸ÀÄÛPÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. Whereas the charge in terms of Articles of Charge issued by the petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta reads as follows: ANNEXURE-I CHARGE: That you DGO Smt. Vijaya G., Assistant Director of Horticulture, Horticulture Department, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District while working as such: a) That you demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant to issue, cheque for subsidy and reduced the demand to Rs.8000/-. b) That on 12/06/2008 you demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2000/- from the complainant as an advance and fixed the next date as 19/6/2008 to pay - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 the remaining bribe amount of Rs.6000/-... c) Thereafter on 19.6.2008 you received the bribe of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant in the presence of shadow witness in your office. d) That, you failed to give any satisfactory reply or explanation or account for the said (tainted) bribe amount, then, when questioned by the I.O.; e) Thereafter, you were caught hold as you were found with the tainted (bribe) amount on said date and at said place; f) Then the said tainted (bribe) amount was seized from the you under a mahazar by the I.O on said date in the presence of panchas; and thereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of becoming of a Government Servant and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 8. A reading of both the above charges would make it clear that the charges are based on the complaint of one Sri.H.K.Meghashyam, alleging that the first respondent demanded and accepted bribe amount for grant of subsidy amount towards installation of Drip Irrigation System. On the Articles of Charge (Annexure-A1) issued by the respondent-State Government, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report as at Annexure-A11 was submitted holding that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to prove the charges. Consequently, Annexure-A12/ Government Order dated 27.10.2016 was passed exonerating the first respondent of the charges. In the meanwhile, the matter was entrusted to the petitioner for conducting enquiry and the petitioner issued Articles of Charge. On the same set of allegations, second enquiry would not be maintainable. Having accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and having exonerated the first respondent of the same charges, it is not proper for the second respondent to initiate fresh enquiry on the same - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33049-DB WP No. 10845 of 2021 set of facts and allegations. There can be only one enquiry in respect of the charge for a particular misconduct and repeated enquiry on the same charge is impermissible. 9. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, on recording reasons has come to a definite conclusion that on the same set of charges, second enquiry is not permissible. There is no reason to interfere with the said reason. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2