- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 12543 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001, REP. BY ITS THE REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE - 570005. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 5. SRI M S GURURAJA SON OF SRI M.V. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.241/B, UTTARDIMATT ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN A.NO- 1851/2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The Karnataka Lokayukta represented by Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 21.01.2019 in Application Nos.1851/2010 and 5618/2011 passed by the Karnataka - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on setting aside the Government order dated 20.10.2009 modifying the order of dismissal and imposing punishment of withholding of 25% of pension permanently. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti would submit that the scope of criminal proceedings as well as the scope of Application before the Tribunal is entirely different and the Tribunal only on the ground that the judgment passed in criminal proceedings is not considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing impugned order of punishment could not have remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority by quashing the order of penalty. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 4. Learned counsel would further submit that in a departmental enquiry, charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and in a criminal proceedings, charges are to be proved on the basis of strict rule of evidence. Therefore, he submits that the judgment passed by the criminal Court would have no bearing on the order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is true that in a departmental proceedings, charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and in a criminal proceedings the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt with strict rules of evidence. However, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 the Tribunal has held that the judgment passed in criminal proceedings would have no bearing on the proceedings in a departmental proceedings, the judgment passed in a criminal proceedings may not be binding on the Disciplinary Authority. However, observations made therein, under certain circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority would have to take note of. 7. In the instant case, the Tribunal at paragraph 11 has observed that the learned Special Judge has come to a conclusion that statement of the accused is probable and acceptable. The judgment according to the Tribunal was a ‘honourable acquittal’ and as the Disciplinary Authority had not taken note of the judgment passed in criminal proceedings, remitted the matter back to the Government to pass appropriate order keeping in mind the order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge at Mysuru in Special Case No.116/1998 and the observations made by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25705-DB WP No. 12543 of 2023 8. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5