- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 29077 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. MALLIKARJUNA P. BUGUDE, S/O SRI. PHAKEERAPPA BUGUDE, AGED 59 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES, O/O THE CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE), No.2, DC AREA, MES ROAD, GOREGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022, RESIDING AT QUARTER No.P22/4, AIR FORCE OFFICERS' ENCLAVE, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-560 015. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.R. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY), KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 011. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL(PERSONNEL), MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE, ENGINEER IN CHIEF'S BRANCH, INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY), KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., CGC FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024 IN OA/170/00542/2024 PASSED BY THE CAT, ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Military Engineering Services, is before this Court questioning the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in O.A. No.170/00542/2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting his challenge to Articles of charge dated 27.06.2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 2. Heard Sri.A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Shubha S., Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Sri.A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the same set of allegations, witnesses and documents, the petitioner is acquitted of the same charge in Criminal Case No.65/2021 by judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, hence departmental proceedings is not maintainable. Learned counsel would submit that when the petitioner is acquitted of the identical or same charge, the disciplinary authority could not have initiated enquiry by issuing articles of charge on the same set of facts, witnesses and documents. Further, learned counsel would submit that the articles of charge would not indicate what is the violation or misconduct by the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 4. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no new material before the Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental proceedings. In the absence of any other additional or new material, the Disciplinary Authority could not have initiated the enquiry by issuing articles of charge on the same material on which the petitioner is already acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal’s finding that a mere show-cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone is not proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of charge memo would prejudice the case of the petitioner is erroneous. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as articles of charge issued under memorandum dated 27.06.2024. 5. Per contra, Smt.Shubha S., Central Government Counsel would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would further submit that in a criminal proceedings, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 strict rules of evidence needs to be followed whereas in a departmental proceedings, charges are to be proved based on the preponderance of probabilities. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the Writ Petition Papers, the only question that would arise for consideration is as to, Whether the charge memo issued against the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority requires interference? 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.R.Holla argued that the disciplinary authority could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuance of the impugned charge memo, when the petitioner is already acquitted of the identical or same charge. However, it is a settled position of law that a mere acquittal in criminal proceeding does not preclude the disciplinary authority from initiating disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo. The Hon’ble - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 Apex Court in an identical fact situation in the case of AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE1 wherein, charge memo was issued against the delinquent after he was acquitted in criminal proceedings, has held that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial stands on a higher pedestal and that in a disciplinary proceeding the guilt of the delinquent can be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “36. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of the respondent. 37. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the 1 (2025) 4 SCC 111 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-à- vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. 38. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618], wherein this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 623, para 15) “15. … A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court….” (emphasis supplied) 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AJIT KUMAR NAG VS. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD2 has reiterated that the acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with rules and regulation in force. It was held as under:- “11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment 2 (2005) 7 SCC 764 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.….” (emphasis supplied) 9. In addition to this, the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily exercised in a challenge to a charge memo or a charge sheet. It should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances wherein, the charge memo has been issued without any jurisdiction or if it is wholly illegal. This is so because neither does the issuance of charge memo give rise to any cause of action nor does it adversely affect the rights of the party against whom the charge memo is issued until an adverse order is passed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS V. RUKMA KESH MISHRA3 observed as under: 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 “11. A coordinate bench of this Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana has held that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice or charge-sheet. The reason is that a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so (emphasis supplied). Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal (emphasis supplied). However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 10. With regard to contention that the charge memo would not indicate what is the violation or misconduct by the petitioner is concerned, it is to be observed that it is a matter for the enquiry and it is for the Enquiry Officer to give a finding as to whether the petitioner has violated any provision or there is misconduct on the part of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28865-DB WP No. 29077 of 2024 petitioner. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to give any finding on the said contention. 11. The Petitioner is before this court seeking quashing of the charge memo dated 27.06.2024. In light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE (supra), AJIT KUMAR NAG (supra) and RUKMA KESH MISHRA (supra), we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30