- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.24208 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. T.REVANNA S/O T.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, A.R.E SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577501. RESIDENCE AT OPP. K.H.B. OFFICE, I.U.D.P LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA, ADV) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4. SRI. N.B.MANJUNATH S/O. LATE N.BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. SADANANDAYYA LAYOUT NEAR RAILWAY STATION CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. ASHWIN.S.HALADY, ADV. FOR R2; R4-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.8052/2018 (ANNEXURE-C) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.8052/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, dismissed Junior Engineer, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2021 in Application No.8052/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), by which the petitioner's challenge to the order of penalty of dismissal dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-A10) is rejected. 2. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, while working at Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Chitradurga, a charge memo was issued alleging demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- on 08.08.2011 from complainant- Sri. N.B.Manjunath for preparing a bill for Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of construction work completed by the complainant. The petitioner submitted reply and thereafter, an Enquiry Officer of respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry and submitted report dated 19.12.2017 holding that charge against the petitioner is proved. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the Government by respondent No.2 along with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 recommendation dated 20.12.2017, recommending penalty of 'dismissal from service'. Respondent No.1 issued second show- cause notice dated 29.01.2018 to the petitioner enclosing enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 28.03.2018. Respondent No.1- State Government under impugned order dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-A10) imposed penalty of dismissal from service in exercise of its power under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'Rules 1957'). Questioning the said order of penalty of dismissal from service, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.8052/2018. The said application came to be dismissed under order dated 30.11.2021. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. M.S.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as Sri. Ashwin.S.Halady, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though respondent No.4 is served, he is unrepresented. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 4. Learned counsel Sri. Rajendra would contend that the order of the Tribunal is opposed to the material on record and further submits that the respondent-Disciplinary Authority has failed to prove charge against the petitioner, demanding and accepting bribe amount by placing cogent evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is acquitted of the charges in Spl.C.(P.C.A) No.5/2012, holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the petitioner. When the said finding is available, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken note of the said finding while passing impugned order of penalty. 5. Learned counsel Sri. Rajendra would further submit that the enquiry as well as criminal prosecution is based on the same set of fact, witness and material. When the Judicial Forum has come to the conclusion that the very same charge against the petitioner is not proved, on the same set of witnesses, Enquiry Officer could not have come to a different conclusion to hold that the charges are proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel would invite certain paragraphs of the Judgment of the Criminal Court and would submit that there is no evidence and particularly PW.2-shadow witness has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 deposed that the accused i.e., petitioner has not demanded the bribe amount and he has not seen the bride amount being paid to the petitioner. When such being the evidence, learned counsel would submit that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and liable to be rejected. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel Sri. Rajendra places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAM LAL vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 as well as in the case of PV RUDRAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.9642/2020 (S-KSAT). Learned counsel would further submit that in PV Rudrappa's case (supra), this Court placing reliance on Ram Lal's case (supra) observed that the entire judgment in criminal case should be perused to conclude as to whether the acquittal is honourable. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the witnesses examined i.e., PW.1 and PW.3 i.e., complainant and Investigating Officer have supported the case of Disciplinary Authority though PW.2 has deposed that he has not seen the petitioner accepting bribe amount. Further, learned AGA would submit that in a disciplinary proceedings, the charges have to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probability, whereas in criminal case, the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, learned AGA would point out that bribe amount is recovered from the petitioner as could be seen from Paragraph No.28 of the Criminal Court judgment and further learned AGA would point out that the petitioner is acquitted of the charges in the criminal case on the benefit of doubt and as such, the same would not assist the petitioner. Thus, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to "Whether interference is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 warranted to the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as impugned order of penalty of dismissal dated 31.10.2018?". 9. Answer to the above point would be in the 'Negative' for the following reasons: In disciplinary proceedings, interference with the order of penalty or disciplinary proceedings is very limited. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not act as an Appellate Authority. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would only examine the process of decision making and would not examine the decision itself. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has made it clear that the interference could be made with the order of penalty or disciplinary proceedings only under certain circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, has laid down the following principles at paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25 to 28, which reads as follows: “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103]. 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 10. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Chitradurga. The charge against the petitioner reads as follows: "That you, DGO Sri.T.Revanna, Junior Engineer, PRE Sub Division, Chitradurga District demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.30,000/- on 8.8.2011 from complainant Sri.N.B.Manjunath S/o late N.Basavarajappa, civil contractor R/o Sadanandayya Badavane near Railway station, Chitradurga at the O/o Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayath, Chitradurga for preparing the bill for Rs.2lakhs in respect of the construction work completed by the complainant, that is for doing 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 misconduct under rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966." 11. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- on 08.08.2011 from complainant- Sri. N.B.Manjunath for preparing a bill for Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of construction work completed by the complainant. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 In the judgment of the Criminal Court in Spl.C (PCA) No.5/2012 dated 02.11.2019 at Paragraph No.28, it is observed that bribe money was recovered from the possession of the accused under trap mahazar-Ex.P2 and work of PW.1-N.B.Manjunath, complainant was pending with the accused-petitioner at relevant point of time. PW.1-complainant in the disciplinary proceedings has categorically deposed with regard to the demand of bribe amount by the petitioner for preparing a bill in respect of work executed by him and PW.1 has fully supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority. Nothing contrary is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1. PW.3-Investigating Officer has spoken about entrustment of bribe amount and recovery of bribe amount from the petitioner-DGO. The charge as observed above shall have to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. The recovery of the tainted amount and pendency of the work with the petitioner as observed in the judgment in the Criminal Court would be more than sufficient to hold that the charge is proved against the petitioner. 12. We have gone through the judgment in the special case and on going through the entire judgment, we have seen - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 that the Sessions Court has categorically recorded a finding that prosecution case creates doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. When such being the finding, the judgment of the Sessions Court would not assist the petitioner in any way. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Ram Lal's case (supra) and PV Rudrappa's case (supra) in support of his contention. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19669/2022 dated 27.09.2024 had an occasion to consider Ram Lal's case (supra) and PV Rudrappa's case (supra) and in an identical fact situation, this Court on analyzing the Ram Lal's case (supra) at Paragraph Nos.14 and 19 has held as follows: "14. In RAM LAL case (supra), the charge was that delinquent therein has altered his date of birth in the marks sheet issued by the Government Secondary School. The Honb'le Apex Court noticing that in the criminal proceedings, the Appellate Court while acquitting the delinquent had recorded that in the original marks sheet (Ex.P3), date of birth was correctly shown, held that in view of the findings recorded in the criminal case, the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 19. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in P.V.RUDRAPPA (supra), taking note of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in RAM LAL (supra) and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI VS. MEHER SINGH9 with regard to ‘honorable acquittal’ has held as follows at paragraph 3(b) and (c): “3. AS TO PLEA OF HONOURABLE ACQUITTAL & ITS EFFECT ON DISCIPLINARY ACTION: (a) ………….. (b) The concept of ‘honourable acquittal’ is easy to say, but difficult to employ, there being no statutory definition thereof, more particularly in the IPC, Cr.PC & Indian Evidence Act. Lord Williams, J. in ROBERT STUART WAUCHOPE vs. EMPEROR (1934) 61 ILR Cal.168 observed: “The expression ‘honourably acquitted’ is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals…”. The Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI v MEHER SINGH, (2013) 7 SCC 68 at para 25 explained the same: “…the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. … when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.” (c) The idea of ‘honourable acquittal’ is not easy to define although it can be illustrated. If an accused is discharged at pre-trial stage or the criminal proceeding launched against him is quashed, there is no difficulty in treating the same as the cases of ‘honourable acquittal’ for the limited purpose of disciplinary enquiry. (We are mindful that the question of acquittal comes post trial). A case of ‘honourable acquittal’ may arise when, after trial the Criminal Court orders acquittal with any of nearly the following illustrives: (i) the accused is falsely prosecuted to seek vengeance or for some ulterior motive. (ii) that there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the accused in the proceedings; (iii) there is very little evidence which is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime; (iv) the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused; (v) the prosecution witnesses are unworthy of any credit and their version does not generate any confidence. We again say that the above are only illustrative and not exhaustive. We would also add a caveat that in considering as to whether the case of delinquent is of ‘honourable acquittal’, the entire judgement in Criminal Case should be perused. It is also desirable to secure a - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32615-DB WP No. 24208 of 2021 copy of record of the proceedings for examination, unless the said exercise poses practical difficulty. At least, it should be open to the delinquent employee to produce such copies.” 14. In light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22