- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1844 OF 2025 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ERANNA S/O MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PEON (D GROUP) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE KARNATAKA 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041 RESIDING AT NO.45 MARUTHI NAGAR SUBRAMANYAPURA POST 398 NEAR CRAZY PARK, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 070 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRES-3 Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE KARNATAKA, 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041 3. DR SUNAD R S/O RANGRAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 474 13TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560003 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.12253/2016 DATED 30/10/2025 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12253/2016 (GM-KLA). 2. The appellant had preferred the said petition impugning an order dated 19.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1 (Karnataka Lokayukta), whereby the charges levelled against the appellant were accepted, as proved. The appellant was accordingly awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. 3. The learned Single Judge had examined the enquiry report and found that the appellant had misused his official position and accordingly, rejected the said writ petition. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant was working as a Peon at the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 Sciences, Jayanagar, Bengaluru [the University]. A complaint was filed by the complainant (respondent No.3) stating that he had approached the appellant enquiring about the date of announcement of results of M.D. General Medicine Final Examination, for which he had appeared. The appellant had introduced himself as an official of the University and had assured the complainant that he would inform him of his results, unofficially in advance. The appellant, thereafter informed the complainant that he had not cleared one out of the four examination papers, for which he had appeared. The appellant also offered that if the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs, he would ensure that the complainant clears the said examination. It is alleged that there were some negotiations between the complainant and the appellant and the amount as demanded was reduced to a minimum of Rs.50,000/-. As against the said amount, Rs.25,000/- was to be paid in advance and the remaining amount was required to be given later. 5. The complainant made a complaint on 28.11.2005 to the Police Inspector, Lokayukta regarding the aforesaid demand. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was laid and the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 was apprehended as accepting the bribe of Rs.25,000/-. The chemically treated currency notes were also recovered. The statements of two Panchas were also recorded. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed by the Lokayukta Police against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act]. 6. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. And, the departmental enquiry initiated under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. 7. The appellant was provided the charge sheet and as well as the statement of imputation of charges. The enquiry culminated by the Enquiry Officer [EO] submitted a report stating that the charges were proved. The EO examined three witnesses including the panchas. The EO also considered the panchanama, the photographs, and also the certified copy of the chemical analysis report along with the other documents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 8. It is also material to note that the appellant did not dispute that he had received the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Initially it was stated that the money was received from an unknown person. However subsequently, he stated that it was received from his cousin. However, the currency notes were marked and when dipped into the solution, the same turned pink in colour. This established that the currency notes were those which were used for laying the trap. The appellant was also given full opportunity to respond to the enquiry report and thereafter, the competent authority issued the order dated 19.01.2016 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. 9. The appellant being aggrieved, preferred the wirt petition which is stated above, was dismissed by the impugned order. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned enquiry report was required to be rejected on the ground that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the complainant had not been examined and the appellant had no opportunity to cross examine the complainant. He also referred to a decision of the Division - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India and others v. Nawab Bind and another : 2025 : AHC : 139658-DB, in support of his contention. He also referred to the decision of the learned LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge in Spl.C.C.No.160/2011 delivered on 05.07.2017 in regard to the criminal complaint lodged against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. He contended that the appellant was acquitted in that said case on the ground that the complainant had not been produced before the Court to examine him. 11. A plain reading of the enquiry report indicates that the enquiry officer examined the materials placed on record and found that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. The said finding is based on cogent material and is informed by reason. We are unable to accept that the impugned enquiry report warrants any interreference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and suffers from any infirmity. 12. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Criminal Court acquitting him of the charges levelled under the PC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 Act are misplaced. It is well settled that the standards of proof in criminal proceedings and in departmental enquiries are different. In the present case, there was sufficient material for the EO to find that the charges were established. 13. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India (supra), does not further the appellant’s case. In the said case the EO had in the initial round found that the charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the said finding and found that the charges were proved. The decision of the disciplinary authority was impugned before the Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT]. The CAT found that the complaint was premised on the statement of the complainant, recorded during the preliminary enquiry. However, the said witness was dropped during the course of the regular enquiry. Notwithstanding the same, the statement of the complainant as recorded in the preliminary enquiry was used without the same being subject to cross-examination. The same was the basis for imposing the punishment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 14. Plain reading of the order indicates that the enquiry report in the said case was not based on the other materials, but on the statement of the complainant recorded during the preliminary enquiry. 15. In the present case, the enquiry report is based on the material that is, independently establishes the charges levelled against the appellant. As noted above, three witnesses were also examined. It is also important to note that the appellant has not disputed the receipt of money. However, initially, he indicated that the source of funds was from an unknown person and thereafter, from his cousin. This defence was found to be unsustainable. The report produced by the chemical examiner, which proved that on the money recovered from the appellant being dipped into the solution, the same had turned pink. This established that the source of the funds to be the one used for laying the trap. Additionally, the witnesses examined, had also supported the charges levelled. 16. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is materially different from the standard of proof in civil proceedings. Thus, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48618-DB WA No. 1844 of 2025 fact that the appellant was acquitted in criminal proceedings for offences punishable under the PC Act does not render the impugned enquiry report vulnerable. 17. In the given circumstances, we find no ground to fault the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25