- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.10858 OF 2020 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SRI S. DURENDRA BABU S/O. H. SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS: METER READER AEE, BWSSB, NO.3, SUB-DIVISION R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU RESIDING AT NO.73, 16TH CROSS CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGERE BENGALURU-560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. SRINIVAS, FOR SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATES FOR R-1; SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED 14-2-2020 AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AND B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH: ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 14-2-2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The petitioner joined the service of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board-respondent No.1, as helper on 21.09.2020. The petitioner was promoted as Meter Reader in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. The complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Lokayukta alleging that notice was served on the complainant's mother-in-law alleging taking water connection illegally. The complainant had approached the petitioner for regularizing the water - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 connection. The petitioner had demanded bribe of Rs.16,000/- stating that the said amount was to be distributed amongst the Joint Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer for regularizing the water connection. Finally, the bribe amount was settled at Rs.7,000/-. 2. The trap was laid on 25.09.2008. The tainted bribe money of Rs.7,000/- was recovered from the petitioner which was seized in the presence of the witnesses and the complainant. The Inspector in the office of the Lokayukta carried out the investigation and submitted the report. The Lokayukta after considering the report, prepared the report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommended the competent authority for initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner in the matter. The competent authority was required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrust the inquiry to the authority under Section 14A of Karnataka Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 3. In respect of the said misconduct of accepting the bribe of Rs.7,000/-, which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, an FIR in Cr.No.56/2008 was registered against the petitioner and the investigation was carried out and on the basis of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988( for short 'P.C. Act'). Charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act for demanding and accepting Rs.7,000/- as bribe amount and the tainted notes having been recovered from his possession in a trap proceeding. The petitioner has however been acquitted in the criminal case being Spl.C.C.No.52/2010 dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Bengaluru, on the ground that the shadow witness, who accompanied the complainant turned hostile and therefore, the demand of bribe amount by the accused/petitioner and pendency of any work of the complainant with the accused/petitioner could not be proved. It was also held that when the demand of illegal gratification was not proved, even if acceptance of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 bribe amount by the accused was established, the guilt of the accused was not got proved. 4. The aforesaid finding of the trial court may be relevant for trial in the criminal case. However, what would be impact of such findings in the domestic enquiry is a question which is required to be considered. 5. In pursuance to the report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act submitted by the Lokayukta, memo of charge was issued to the petitioner for demanding bribe of Rs.16,000/- to regularize the illegal connection and thereafter, accepting the bribe amount of Rs.7,000/- and tainted currency notes having been recovered from his possession in the trap proceedings initiated on 25.09.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges in the domestic inquiry as well as departmental proceedings are one and the same. Even the witnesses in both i.e., the domestic inquiry and the criminal trial are one and the same. Once the petitioner has been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 acquitted in the criminal trial in respect of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C. Act, awarding punishment to the petitioner in the domestic inquiry of compulsory retirement is to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2024) 1 SCC 175. 8. On the other hand, Sri. B.S. Srinivas representing Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, appearing for respondent No.2-Lokayukta submitted that the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal trial cannot be said to be clean acquittal, inasmuch as, the petitioner got acquitted on technical ground, as the shadow witness turned hostile. Learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti further submits that the scope of criminal proceedings in the criminal trial and the domestic inquiry is different and distinct. In criminal trial, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 whereas, in domestic inquiry, the charge of misconduct has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In domestic inquiry, the complainant stood his ground in respect of demand and acceptance of the bribe and the Inspector recovered the tainted bribe amount of Rs.7,000/- from the petitioner. Even in the criminal trial, the learned Trial Judge has not doubted the acceptance of the bribe amount. What has been said is that the demand could not be proved in the absence of the witness supporting it, inasmuch as, the shadow witness did not support the prosecution case in the criminal trial. 9. We have considered the submissions. The law on domestic inquiry is well settled that the charge has to be proved on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities and not establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal trial, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The acceptance of the bribe amount is established. Even in criminal trial, the acquittal of the petitioner is on the ground that the demand could not be proved as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 shadow witness did not support the prosecution case, would not render the domestic inquiry and the punishment invalid, inasmuch as, on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, who recovered the tainted money from the petitioner, the charge stood proved. The acquittal of the accused/petitioner on technical ground would not come in the way of finalizing the domestic inquiry and inflicting punishment. 10. The judgment in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2024) 1 SCC 175 does not support the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the case was not in respect of corruption of demanding and accepting bribe for performing official duty. It was in respect of alleged manipulation in one of the document. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner, where, the acceptance of the bribe amount has been established even in the trial of the criminal case against the petitioner. The charge of misconduct has been proved in the domestic inquiry on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34813-DB WP No. 10858 of 2020 the basis of evidence of the complainant as well as Inquiry Officer- the Inspector, who recovered the tainted amount from the petitioner. We therefore, do not find that there is any illegality in inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a result of domestic inquiry. No other point except the aforesaid point has been urged before this Court and therefore, we do not find any scope for interference with the impugned order of inflicting punishment on the petitioner of compulsory retirement from service. 11. We therefore dismiss the writ petition, however, without cost. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45