- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12253 OF 2016 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SRI. ERANNA S/O MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PEON (D-GROUP), RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. R/AT NO.45, MARUTHI NAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, 398, NEAR CRAZY PARK, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 070. ....PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 3. DR. SUNAD R. S/O RANGRAJ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.474, 13TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19TH JANUARY, 2016 MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19th January, 2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 and Order dated 29th August, 2016 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 25th April, 2018 (Annexure-G) and 02nd March, 2018 (Annexure-H) to re-instate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 the petitioner into service and to pay the salary/back wages and other benefits to the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Peon (D-Group) at the respondent No.2-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and was efficiently discharging his duties in the said post. It is stated that the respondent No.3 filed complaint dated 28th November, 2005 to the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division stating that, he had appeared in M.D. General Medicine Final Examination during the month of Sep-2005 conducted by the respondent No.2-University and had contacted the petitioner, who introduced as he was a official working at the respondent No.2-University and assured the respondent No.3 to let him know the results of the Examination unofficially. In this regard, the petitioner informed the respondent No.3 that, he had failed in one subject out of four subjects. It is further stated that the petitioner had made a demand for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to have passed in the failed subject and after negotiation, the petitioner agreed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and as such, the petitioner demanded for a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 Rs.25,000/- as advance. In this regard, the petitioner was trapped by the Lokayukta Police as per the complaint dated 28th November, 2005 filed by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.1. During the trap, the respondent No.1 recorded the statement of two Panchas and the petitioner was apprehended while the petitioner was accepting the bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent No.3. The charge-sheet was filed by the Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated in a disciplinary proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The respondent No.1, based on the enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 19th January, 2016 (Annexure-A), for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner presented this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. V. S. Arabatti, learned counsel - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 4. Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Authorities have ignored the fact that the complainant was not examined during the departmental enquiry and was and he was not participated in the proceedings and therefore, the demand styled as 'Bribe' was not proved during the proceedings. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.160/2011 filed against the petitioner came to be disposed of by judgment dated 05th July, 2017, acquitting the petitioner herein for the same offences for which, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the respondents herein and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Nextly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Authorites failed to prove the demand made by the petitioner as no work was pending before him to be completed as the petitioner was only a Peon (Group- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 D official) in the respondent No.2-University. Therefore, to buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM LAL vs. STATE OF RAJASTAN AND OTHERS reported in (2024)1 SCC 175 and submitted that the conclusion reached by the respondent-Authorities in respect of the petitioner herein requires to be set-aside. 6. By placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. JAYARAJ vs. STATE OF A.P. reported in (2014)13 SCC 55, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that, the complainant was not examined and there is no proof of demand for illegal gratification with the respondent-Authorities in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in the case of NAWAB BIND vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF POST DAK BHAWAN, NEW - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 DELHI AND OTHERS made in Original Application No.330/00406/2013 decided on 07th May, 2024 and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities requires to be set-aside. 8. Per contra, Sri. V.S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities and submitted that the scope of departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings are distinct and the effect of the acquittal by the Criminal Court has no bearing on the Departmental Enquiry, which aspect has been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER vs. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA VASANAD AND ANOTHER made in Writ Petition No.100268 of 2024 decided on 25th September, 2025. In this regard, he argued that the Honourable acquittal in a criminal case is distinct from an acquittal on account of technical reasons namely, hostile witnesses or non-examination of the witnesses. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 9. Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 sought to justify the impugned orders and submitted that, since the fair enquiry has been conducted during the departmental proceedings, the same has to be confirmed. 10. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 trapped the petitioner for alleged illegal gratification being received by the petitioner from the respondent No.3. The facts for apprehending the petitioner during the trap was on account of the fact that the respondent No.3 appeared for M.D. General Medicine Final Examination during the month of Sep-2005 conducted by the respondent No.2-University and it is alleged that the respondent No.3 contacted the petitioner to disclose the result of the respondent No.3. In pursuance of the same, it is alleged that the petitioner informed the respondent No.3 about his failure in one subject out of four subject and thereafter, the petitioner demanded the respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to have the results of the petitioner passed in the failed subject and after - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 negotiation, the petitioner agreed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and as such, demanded Rs.25,000/- as advance. It is not in dispute that the criminal case was launched against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Spl.C.C. No.160/2011 before the competent Sessions Court and Special Judge and in the said proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted, by judgment dated 05th July, 2017 (Annexure-F). Perusal of the paragraph 20 of the said judgment dated 05th July, 2017 would indicate that the prosecution had failed to produce the complainant before the Court despite issue of summons, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant and as such, the petitioner was acquitted on account of non-examination of the complainant to prove the demand said to have been made by the petitioner an not on the merits of the case. 11. It is well settled principle in law that, the principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the Criminal Law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offences beyond - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 the reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to presumption of innocence. On the contrary, in a departmental proceedings by an employer, the employer has to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of Service Rules governing the parties therein. In the departmental proceedings, the charge has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence, which apply to the Criminal Trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. 12. In the judgment referred to by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of RAM LAL (supra) at paragraphs 27 to 29 held as under: "27. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that in the document Ext. P-3 — original marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth was clearly shown as 21-4- 1972 and the other documents produced by the prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date of birth was 21-4-1974 and that the accused was entitled to receive its benefit. However, what we are supposed to see is the substance of the judgment. A reading of the entire judgment - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 clearly indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge [See S. Samuthiram (Supra)]. 28. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. 29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, “not proved” — in fact the charge even stood “disproved” by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 not exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved” [(See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190]" (emphasis supplied) 13. In the case of NEERAJ DUTTA vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in (2023)18 SCC 251 at paragraph 14 held as under: "21. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct, oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand." (emphasis supplied) 14. In the case of B. JAYARAJ (supra), it is held that the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only, if there is proof of demand and the said aspect was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in the case of NAWAB BIND (supra). Applying the aforementioned principles to the case on hand, there is no doubt that the complainant was not examined as the complainant had traveled to abroad, however, perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the trap team members have found that the petitioner had made a demand for an advance of Rs.25,000/- to have the results of the respondent No.3 passed in M.D. General Medicine Final Examination and the entire case of the respondents is based on the trap in which the petitioner was party to the said illegal gratification. In that view of the matter, following the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA VASANAD (supra) made in WP No.100268 of 2024, I am of the view that the order of compulsory retirement in respect of the petitioner - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 made by the respondent-Authorities based on the report of enquiry is just and proper. 15. It is to be noted that, in a case of trap, the delinquent officer cannot be permitted to have the benefit that the demand was not proved on account of non-examination of the complainant, where the materials were seized in the presence of the delinquent employee. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the process/procedure of enquiry as per impugned order dated 19th January, 2016 (Annexure-A), I am of the view that, no interference be called for in the impugned orders passed by the respondent- Authorities. 16. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE reported in (2025)4 SCC 111 particularly, at paragraphs 31 and 35 to 38 held as under: "31. Further, we are unable to sustain the finding of the Division Bench that the non-examination of the complainant is fatal to the case of the appellant authority. It is well- settled principle of law that even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 the courts are empowered to record conviction, where the decoy turns hostile, and the prosecution case is based purely on the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and the trap witnesses. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of Gujarat, wherein it was held thus : “7. … It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that while in the case of evidence of an accomplice, no conviction can be based on his evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars but as regards the evidence of a partisan witness it is open to a court to convict an accused person solely on the basis of that evidence, if it is satisfied that that evidence is reliable.” ******** "35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank [Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, wherein it was held: “11. … Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.” 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 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, wherein this Court held as follows: “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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43574 WP NO.12253 OF 2016 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 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….” 17. It is clear from the enquiry report that the petitioner has misused his official position, though being a Peon in the respondent No.2-University and indulged in disclosing the result of M.D. General Medicine Final Examination in advance before announcing the results to the respondent No.3. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39