- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.20838 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563.101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: 1. SRI. YOGENDRANATHA S.R, S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S.A, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 COMPULSORY RETIREMENT), TALUK OFFICE, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT, R/AT NO.223/17.18 8TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. THE HON'BLE UPALOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, O/O KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 IN APPLICATION NO.5129/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A); b) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The first respondent has successfully called in question the first petitioner's order dated 06.11.2024 under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the 1957 Rules'] with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Application No.5129/2024. The first respondent is served with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 2. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 17.02.2025, has set aside the first petitioner's order dated 06.11.2024 directing the first respondent's reinstatement into service with immediate effect and to extend all consequential benefits [including the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 financial benefits] within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The facts in brief can be stated thus. The first respondent is appointed as a Village Accountant in July 2007, and a complaint is filed against him with the Lokayukta on 22.08.2013. The Complainant has alleged that the first respondent obstructed the transfer of revenue entries in favour of the complainant's friend demanding a bribe of Rs.10,000/- and that the first respondent was insisting on the demand even after such proceedings. This complaint has resulted in trap proceedings and the initiation of penal proceedings against the first respondent by the Lokayukta. 3.1 The penal proceedings have ended with the first respondent's acquittal in Special Case [Corruption] No.5/2014 by the Special Court, and the Special Court’s judgment is dated 30.09.2020. There is a simultaneous disciplinary proceeding by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 office of the Lokayukta with the order of entrustment under Rule 14A of the 1957 Rules, and the Inquiry Report dated 04.07.2024 is filed holding that the charges of demand against the first respondent are proved. The petitioner's decision to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement is thereafter. 4. The Tribunal has interfered with the decision to compulsorily retire the first respondent from service referring to different decisions of the Apex Court on a scope of judicial review with a decision in the departmental proceedings but opining that the first respondent has suffered the penalty notwithstanding there being no evidence against him. The Tribunal has opined that it must interfere because there is no evidence of the afore for the following reasons. [i] The complainant has turned hostile in the departmental proceedings and he is cross-examined, but he remains steadfast - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 in stating that the Lokayukta Police refused to receive the complaint as written by him and they insisted that the complaint must be written as directed by them. [ii] The Complainant has stated that the Lokayukta Police handed over Rs.10,000/- in different denominations and that the first respondent, even as of the date of the complaint, had informed the landowner that the Katha for the property was mutated in his favour. [iii] The shadow witness [PW2], who has also turned hostile, has stated that there was a conversation between the first respondent and the Complainant, but he does not know what the conversation was. [iv] This witness has also stated that the Complainant, when he stepped out of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 room, signaled the Lokayukta staff and then he and another went inside the room; and that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was on the table. [v] The witness has admitted that the staff who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency, which was used for trapping, was the person who held the first respondent's hand. [vi] The witness has stated that when the Inspector of Lokayukta inquired with the complainant about the amount being handed over, the Complainant stated that the first respondent refused to receive the amount, and therefore, he had left the amount on the table. 5. The Tribunal has opined that the evidence of the other witnesses examined in the departmental proceedings would not be of any avail to sustain the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 imputations against the first respondent because he was outside when the trap was executed and the official witness admits that the complainant was not in any manner related to the landowner whose application for Katha was attended to. 6. Mr. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the Tribunal, despite referring to the different decisions by the Apex Court to say that the Courts/Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the orders of the disciplinary authority and reassess the evidence, has reassessed the evidence overlooking material discrepancies with the witnesses changing their version in the departmental proceedings. 7. Mr. M. K. Prithveesh, the learned counsel for the first respondent, while reiterating the circumstances underscored by the Tribunal, submits that this Court must consider whether there should be any intervention when it is brought on record, as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 observed by the Special Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2020, that the revenue records for the subject land was not mutated initially because of the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 but it was made after resolving certain technical glitches. 8. This Court opines that no exception can be taken with the Tribunal concluding that there is no evidence. The Complainant not only turned hostile but has also stated that the complaint was drawn at the instance of the Lokayukta Police and even the denominations were handed over by them. The independent witness asserts that at the time of trap, when inquired by the Inspector, the Complainant has stated that the first respondent did not receive the money and therefore, he had left the money on the table. This Court has also considered the question of interference in the light of the fact that the petitioners are not in a position to dispute that the person who - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 had applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency used in the trap was the very person who held the first respondent’s hand. 9. At this stage, Mr. V. Shivareddy submits that the Tribunal has granted the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits including the financial benefits and that this Court must examine whether the first respondent, when has been out of service from the date of the order dated 06.11.2024, must be reinstated with such benefits. Mr. M. K. Prithveesh is heard even on this aspect. 10. Mr. M. K. Prithveesh, when queried on whether the first respondent has taken a particular stand about being out of employment with the first impugned order dated 06.11.2024, cannot invite this Court's attention to any such pleading and nor can the learned counsel persuade this Court to opine that the back wages must be allowed under all - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 circumstances if an employee has been out of employment. As such, the first respondent, with the confirmation of the Tribunal's conclusion as against the order dated 06.11.2024, is entitled for reinstatement and also for consequential benefits but not for back wages and the consequential benefits must be fixed notionally. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of modifying the Tribunal's impugned order dated 17.02.2025 in the first respondent's application No.5129/2024. [B] The first respondent is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order [within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order] directing the petitioners to ensure that the first - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51068-DB WP No. 20838 of 2025 respondent is reinstated and is admitted to consequential benefits as afore observed within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [C] It is needless to observe that the first respondent, if he has received any financial benefits as a consequence of the impugned order dated 06.11.2024, must restitute the same along with furnishing a certified copy of this order as mentioned in Clause [B]. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE RB