- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 10689 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR RAOD, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRL., SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572101. 3. SRI N RAMESH S/O NAGAPPA, THE THEN VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. R/O KANCHAGHATTA, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 NEW EXTENSION, 10TH CROSS, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN A.NO.7253/2015; B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.7253/2015 (ANNEXURE-B) 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 petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 05.09.2019 in Application No.7253/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) allowing the application of respondent No.3, wherein the 3rd respondent had questioned the order of penalty of compulsory retirement, in exercise of power under Rule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 8(vi) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Respondent No.3, a Village Accountant was trapped while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.100/- on 24.07.1999. A case in Crime No.9/1999 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against 3rd respondent. The petitioner forwarded the observation note on 03.01.2001, calling explanation from respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is said to have submitted his explanation on 18.03.2001 stating that the complainant returned Rs.100/- which he had taken on 23.07.1999 for purchasing the medicines which respondent No.3 had given to him, since the complainant was well-known person to him. Thereafter, in the said crime, charge sheet was filed and it was registered as Spl.Case No.39/2000. In the meanwhile, after investigation, a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 submitted to the State Government and the State Government, by order dated 31.05.2003 (Annexure-A5) entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner. The petitioner issued Articles of Charge dated 23.12.2003. The Enquiry Officer under report dated 31.01.2015 held that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the charge against respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, the criminal proceedings in Spl.Case No.39/2000 under judgment dated 10.07.2008, the 3rd respondent was acquitted of the charge, respondent No.3 was issued with second show- cause notice, enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer along with recommendation of the Lokayukta. After considering the reply of respondent No.3, the State Government/Disciplinary Authority under impugned order dated 03.08.2015 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on respondent No.3 in exercise of its power under Rule 8(vi) of CCA Rules. Questioning the said order, Respondent No.3 was before the Tribunal in Application No.7253/2015 and the Tribunal under impugned order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 dated 05.09.2019 allowed the application and set aside the order of punishment dated 03.08.2015, with a direction to the respondent-Government to reinstate the 3rd respondent immediately and to settle all consequential benefits including financial benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard Sri.Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the application and in setting aside the order of penalty. Learned counsel would submit that the judgment of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Disciplinary Authority for the reasons that standard of proof required in both the proceedings are different. It is submitted that normally in criminal proceedings, strict rules of evidence is applicable whereas - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 in a departmental proceedings, the charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probability. Further, learned counsel Sri.Arabatti would submit that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in observing that when the same set of material, the witnesses, documents, evidence in the criminal case as well as in a departmental proceedings, if the delinquent official is acquitted of the criminal charges, the same has to be taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Arabatti submits that the witnesses, P.W.1/complainant and P.W.2/Shadow witness though turned hostile in the criminal proceedings, have adduced their evidence in favour of the Disciplinary Authority before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer is justified in coming to the conclusion that the charges are proved. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 OTHERS v/s GYAN CHAND CHATTAR reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 to come to the conclusion that the charges are to be proved at the hilt and mere preponderance of probability is not sufficient. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State would support the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and pray for allowing the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for respondent No.1, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order, for the following reasons: Admittedly, the criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry are on the incident of trap that took place on 24.07.1999 i.e., while the petitioner was receiving Rs.100/- as illegal gratification. The charge - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 against respondent No.3 in departmental enquiry in terms of Articles of Charge dated 23.12.2003 reads as follows: C£ÀħAzsÀ – 1 zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ: ¤ÃªÀÅ ²æà J£ï.gÀªÉÄÃ±ï ©£ï £ÁUÀ¥Àà, gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆç½AiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ¼ÉÃPÉÆ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁj JAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀ£ÁzÀ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÀ¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀ vÀ¼ÉÃPÉÆ¥ÀàzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¨ÁåAQ¤AzÀ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ vÀ£Àß d«ÄãÀÄ ¸À.£ÉÆÃ.108gÀ ¥ÀºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀgÁzÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÁUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä 100-00 gÀÆ. UÀ¼À ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä MvÁ۬Ĺ ¢£ÁAPÀ 24-7-99 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2.55 UÀAmÉUÉ CªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸ÀPÁÌV 100-00 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉý ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ ¹QÌ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ, F ¤ªÀÄä PÀÈvÀå¢AzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àj¥ÀÆtð ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ¥ÁqÀ®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀÄwÛÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ M§â ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. F ¤ªÀÄä PÀÈvÀå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1966gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3 ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 8. The charge in the criminal proceedings is identical to the charge framed in the departmental proceedings. The point that was formulated for consideration at Sl.No.2 reads as follows: “2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused being a public servant, working as a Village Accountant of Thalekoppa Circle, Chelur hobli, Gubbi Taluk demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from PW.1 T.N. Kumaraswamy for the purpose of giving pahani in respect of Sy.No.108, which stood in the name of his father, who had died about 20 years ago, as a motive or reward for doing the said official act on 24/7/99 at 2.55 p.m. in the office of the Village Accountant of Thalekoppa village and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from PW.1 T.N. Kumaraswamy and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?” 9. Admittedly, in the criminal proceedings, P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the complainant and shadow witness have turned hostile and the Prosecution has cross-examined them. However, in the departmental proceedings, they have supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 some extent. The charge in the departmental proceedings is that respondent No.3 demanded Rs.100/- as illegal gratification for issuance of Record of Right. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.1 with regard to Record of Right, P.W.1 denied stating that he does not know as to when the Record of Right was prepared and mutation was effected. P.W.2-Panch Witness in his cross-examination has stated that he was not told about the exact amount demanded by the DGO and he has also stated that the DGO did not question the complainant as to how much amount he has brought. He also stated that the Police seized only two currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and not the notes which were with the complainant. The Sessions Court in its judgment dated 10.07.2008 in Spl.Case No.39/2000 has categorically held that the Prosecution has failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal, on examining the evidence on record in the criminal proceedings as well as in the departmental proceedings has rightly come to the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 conclusion that when the same person giving evidence at two places on oath, which are totally different and contradictory to each other and has put itself a question as to whether such witness could be relied upon by the Court. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no evidence to prove the charge against the 3rd respondent. 10. The only finding which requires interference in the impugned order is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GYAN CHAND CHATTAR case (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case based on the facts of the said case, was of the opinion that charge of corruption was required to be proved at the hilt as the same is the consequence upon the employee concerned, which is explained in paragraph 22 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “22. Witnesses were examined before the enquiry office that they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of them was able to point out who was that person who had been asked to pay 1% commission. One of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 such witnesses deposed that some unknown person had told him. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in this regard was based on “hearsay statement of some unknown persons whom they did not know.” This was certainly not legal evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee.” Thus, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal could not have placed reliance on GYAN CHAND CHATTAR case to the facts of the present case. However, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the same person giving evidence at two places on oath, which are totally different and contradictory to each other, whether such witness can be relied upon by the Court, is justified. 11. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 5th September, 2019 whereas, the present writ petition is filed on 24th May 2023, nearly after 3 years 8 months from the date of passing the order by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, while filing the application before the Tribunal - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28859-DB WP No. 10689 of 2023 i.e., in the year 2015 was aged about 51 years. As on the date of filing the writ petition in the year 2023, respondent No.3 was nearing the age of superannuation and as on this day, the 3rd respondent has attained the age of superannuation and he is aged about 62 years. The delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner has prejudiced the case of respondent No.3. The petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition within a reasonable time. Three and half years delay in filing writ petition would not be a reasonable time. Thus, on the ground of delay and latches also, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition accordingly stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT:bms/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1