- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 889 OF 2024 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE CITY WING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI JAIKUMAR A S, S/O LATE SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS: JUNIOR ENGINEER BESCOM, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K-2 SUB DIVISION,BESCOM, ANJANA NAGARA, BENGALURU. RESIDING AT NO.374, 2ND B CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 14TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU. 2. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BANGALORE-560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR) (SINCE IMPUGNED ORDER RELATES TO THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MADE A PARTY HEREIN) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 - DELETED V.C.O DT 16.07.2024) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 (ANNEXURE A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AT BENGLAURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.480/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.11.2017 in Special C.C.No.480/2016. The aforementioned Special C.C. No.480/2016 is registered pursuant to a charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988'). 2. In the said proceedings, the accused who is respondent No.1 before this Court, filed an application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19 of the Act, 1988 and sought discharge on the premise that the sanction as required under Section 19 of Act, 1988 is not obtained before prosecuting the accused. 3. It is the contention of the accused before the Trial Court that the Director (Administration and Human Resources) is not competent to issue sanction under the Regulations applicable to the accused. 4. The petitioner/prosecuting agency asserted that the Director (Administration and Human Resources) under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 Regulation 10 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 ('Regulations, 1987' for short) is competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused. 5. The Trial Court over-ruled the objection and allowed the application holding that only the Board is competent to issue the sanction and the Director (Administration and Human Resources) is not empowered to grant sanction. The Trial Court also held that the amended provisions of Regulations, 1987 are not yet notified and will be not be effective till notified and prosecuting agency cannot trace the power to grant sanction, to the Director (Administration and Human Resources) under the amended Regulations. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner -Lokayukta is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the employer namely Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) had filed a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 criminal revision petition before this Court assailing the very same order and the petition was rejected on the premise that KPTCL has no locus to question the impugned order. After the dismissal of the said petition, for want of locus, the present petition is filed by the prosecuting agency namely the Lokayukta. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the locus of the petitioner to file the petition against the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused is the employee of the KPTCL. Under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, 1988, sanction of the authority, competent to impose penalty of dismissal is required for prosecuting the employee for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act, 1988. The Director (Administration and Human Resources) is the Competent Authority to remove the employees in certain cadre from the service, as such the sanction granted on 23.09.2016 is a valid sanction in the eye of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 10. Trial Court has held that the Regulations, 1987 applicable to the Corporation though amended, is not notified and not given effect to, as such, the unamended Regulations 1987 would govern the field. The Trial Court proceeded that under the unamended Regulations, 1987, Board is the only competent authority to grant sanction, on the premise that the Board is the only competent authority to remove the accused who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that finding is erroneous inasmuch as Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1987 also provides for imposing a penalty of removal on the Director (Administration and Human Resources). 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that the Special Court is justified in passing the impugned order. It is his submission that the Director (Administration and Human Resources) who has passed an order on 23.09.2016 sanctioning prosecution has no authority under the Regulations, 1987 to impose penalty of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 dismissal from service. Since he has no authority to impose penalty of dismissal from service, the sanction which is granted on 23.09.2016 is not in compliance with the requirement of Section 19(1)(c) of Act, 1988. Thus, he would urge that the petition be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused would also submit that the all the accused are exonerated in a domestic enquiry and degree of proof that is required in a criminal case is much higher than the degree of proof required in a domestic enquiry. The guilt is to be established in a domestic enquiry based on preponderance of probability, whereas in the criminal case, the test is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is urged that since all the accused are exonerated in the domestic enquiry, the prosecution against the accused in a special case before the Trial Court is wholly unwarranted as the witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet before the Special Court are one and the same. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 14. Learned counsel would also refer to the following judgments to substantiate his contention: (i) G M Tank vs State of Gujarat And Others1 (ii) V.Venkatasiva Reddy vs State of Karnataka2 (iii) Aejaz Hussain vs State of Karnataka and Ors3 (iv) Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs Deputy Superintendent of Police4 (v) Sri Chandrashekar vs The Karnataka Lokayukta And Another.5 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in K H Kamaladini vs State6 to contend that merely because an employee is exonerated in a domestic enquiry, is not a ground to discharge the accused before the commencement 1 (2006)5 SCC 446 2 Crl.P.No.7157/2016 3 W.P.No.203239/2019 4 (2020)9 SCC 636 5 W.P.No.104828/2024 6 2025 INSC 745 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 of trial. It is quite possible that evidence to be led in criminal case would be different from the evidence that is led in a domestic enquiry is the submission. 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. Regulation 10A of Regulations, 1987 reads as under: 10A- Authority to institute proceedings: (1) The Board or any other authority empowered by the Board in general or special order may - (a) Institute disciplinary proceedings against any Board employee. (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Board employee on whom the Disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these Regulations any of the penalties specified in Regulation - 9. (2) A Disciplinary Authority competent under these regulations, vide schedules V, Vi, VII and VIII, to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) (a) of Regulations may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Board employee for the imposition of penalties specified in clauses - (v) to (viii) of Regulatons-9 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these Regulations to impose any of he later penalties. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 18. There is no dispute that under Regulation 10A(1) of the Regulations, 1987, the Board is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any other employee of the Board. The said provision also enables any other authority empowered by the Board in general or by special order to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Board employee. 19. Regulation 10A(1)(b) of Regulations, 1987 enables the Board to direct initiation of disciplinary proceeding against such employees, by the disciplinary authority competent to impose penalties specified in Regulation 9. 20. Regulation 10A-(2) of Regulations, 1987 refers to schedules V, VI, VII and VIII in Regulations, 1987. And the said provision also provides that Disciplinary Authority named in schedules V, VI, VII and VIII, competent to impose penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) (a) of Regulations, 1987, may initiate the disciplinary proceeding to impose penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (viii) of Regulation-9. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 21. In other words, under Regulation 10A(2), the power is also conferred on the authority competent under schedules V, VI, VII and VIII of the Regulations, 1987 to initiate disciplinary proceedings, for imposing penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) if the authority is also competent to impose penalty specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 9 of Regulations, 1987. 22. The question is, "Whether Director, Administration and Human Resources is the competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal as provide in clauses (v) to (viii) of Regulation 9?" 23. Under the schedule provided to Regulations, 1987, it is noticed that the Director, Administration and Human Resources is the competent person to appoint Assistant Executive Engineer. This was the position before the amendment to Regulations, 1987 and even after the amendment. 24. In addition to that, it is also noticed that the Director, Administration and Human Resources is also an - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal as provided under Regulation 9(viii). Though there is an amendment to the said schedule, even after the amendment, the position remains the same as far as the power to impose penalty is concerned. The said power is conferred to remove the person in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. 25. The Trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that amendment requires Notification in the Official Gazette and in the absence of such Notification, the amendment cannot be given effect to. Though the amendment requires Notification and unless there is a Notification, the amendment cannot be given effect to, what is required to be noticed is even before the amendment, the power to impose penalty of removal from service is conferred. 26. This being the position, this Court is of the view that Regulations, 1987 enables the Appointing Authority to impose penalty of dismissal also enables to grant under Section 19(1)(c) of Act, 1988. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 27. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Special Court and it erroneously allowed the application. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused urged that the respondent/accused has been exonerated in the domestic enquiry and to this effect, there is a report submitted by the officers of the KPTCL. The witnesses in the domestic enquiry and the witnesses cited in the criminal case being same, there is no justification in proceeding with the prosecution and relied on the judgments referred to supra. 29. Learned counsel would submit that contention in this behalf was not raised before the Trial Court when the application was filed seeking discharge. Learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari7 supra. 30. It is noticed that only 6 witnesses have been examined in the domestic enquiry. In the charge sheet before the Special Court 12 witnesses are cited. The trial 7 (2020)9 SCC 636 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 before the Special Court has not yet commenced. It is also quite possible that the prosecution may with the leave of the Court adduce additional evidence after holding further investigation and if additional evidence is gathered by them. 31. In any case, only ground urged in the application seeking discharge was want of proper sanction. Thus, the scope of enquiry need not be enlarged in this petition by comparing the report in the domestic enquiry and the materials in the charge sheet. 32. For the aforementioned reasons, petition succeeds. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Spl. C.C.No. 480/2016 is set-aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the Trial Court for consideration in accordance with law. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33418 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2024 (iv) It is noticed that the proceeding before the Trial Court is of the year 2016. Both parties shall co-operate for early disposal. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS, BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21