- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 39016 OF 2016 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SRI. S.N. JAGADISH S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WATER METER READER, O/O C-3, BWSSB, NETAJI ROAD, FRASER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 R/AT NO.124/15, 9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINILAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE KARNTAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023, SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.BWSSB/CAO-S/16/2011 4525/2011/2012 DATED 16.01.2012 (ANNEXURE-A) CORRIGENDUM BEARING NO.BENJAMAN/MUAAAA- KA/16/5349/2011-12 DATED 05.03.2012 (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ARTICLES OF CHARGE BEARING NO.LOK/INQ/14-A/119/2012 DATED 10.10.2012 (ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID ORDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the notification bearing No.BWSSB/CAO-S/16/2011 4525/2011-12 dated 16.01.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957’). He has also sought for quashing of Corrigendum bearing No.¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/16/5349/2011-12 dated 05.03.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 and Articles of Charge bearing No.LOK/INQ/14-A/119/2012 dated 10.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.4 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 2. The petitioner was working as a Water Meter recorder in the respondent No.2 at Frazer Town, Bengaluru. Based on a complaint that the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification for some official work, a trap was laid by the respondent No.3. The trap was successful and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the respondent No.1 which forwarded it to the respondent No.2 for needful action. The respondent No.2 in terms of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 impugned order dated 16.01.2012, entrusted the enquiry to respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the provisions of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 are not applicable as he was not a Government servant. He also contends that the Court of the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A), Bengaluru (C.C.H. No.79) (henceforth referred to as ‘the Criminal Court’) in Special C.C No.344/2010 had acquitted the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 on the very same allegations and involving the very same witnesses. He, therefore, contends that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and that it would be an empty formality as the complainant has expired and all the other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. In support of his first contention, he has relied upon an order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.12300/2020 and connected cases (disposed off on 23.07.2021). In support of his second contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [1999(3) SCC 679]. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 be set at nought. 5. Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections and the relevant portion of the same is extracted below: “1. …… This respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Meter Reader under this respondent Board. One Sri Kumar S/o Parashuram lodged a complaint on 04/09/2010 before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bangalore stating that about three months prior to 04/09/2010, he received a water bill for Rs.6000/- and during the month of June, 2010 he had been to the office of the respondent Board wherein he met the petitioner, working as Meter Reader in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, W-4 Sub-Division, BWSSB, West of Chord Road, Bangalore and enquired him about the water Bill for Rs.6000/-; the petitioner informed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 him that his was a non-domestic connection and to get it converted into domestic connection, he had to credit the bill amount of Rs.6000/- and to give him the receipt for having credited the bill amount of Rs.6000/-, title deed of the house, the plan and Rs.17,000/- and that he would get the connection changed to domestic use; thereafter he credited the bill amount, the petitioner demanded Rs.17,000/- bribe and when he expressed his inability to pay that much of amount, the petitioner insisted on payment of Rs.5000/-. Based on that complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.38/2010 at City Division, Bangalore Lokayuktha Police Station for offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. 3. It is further submitted that after registering the case, the investigating officer observed all the pre-trap formalities and the petitioner was trapped on 04/09/2010 after he accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant in the presence of shadow witness and the said bribe amount was seized from the petitioner's possession. The facts stated above supported by the material on record shows that the petitioner being a public servant failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant and liable for disciplinary action. Further, on the basis of the report made by the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division, enclosing investigation papers filed by the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 Bangalore City, an investigation was taken up under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why recommendations should not be made to the competent authority for initiating departmental enquiry against him, to which petitioner submitted his explanation, which was not satisfactory and convincing. 4. This respondent further submits that since the facts and material on record prima facie established that the petitioner has committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966, acting under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, recommendation was made to the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrust the inquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Accordingly, by a notification dated 16/01/2012, the disciplinary authority of the Respondent Board entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta. Further, this respondent issued a corrigendum dated 05/03/2012 to substitute the word Lokayukta with Upa-Lokayukta in the order part of the notification dated 16/01/2012. Accordingly, the Additional Registrar (Enquiries-3) Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore issued an article of charges dated 10/10/2012 to the petitioner. Challenging the notification dated 16/01/2012, corrigendum dated 05/03/2012 and article of charges dated 10/10/2012, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with baseless allegations and untenable grounds, more particularly that he is not a government servant. It is submitted that the definition of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 the public servant as per Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act is as below: "2(12) "Public Servant" means a person who is or was at any time. (a) to (f) xxxxxxx xxxxxx (g) a person in the service or pay of.- (i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka; (ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification, from time to time, specify; (iii) xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx From the aforementioned definition, it is amply clear that a person in the service or pay of statutory body or a corporation established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other Board or Corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification specify, shall be the public servant." 5. This respondent respectfully submits that from the above, it is clear that a person in the service or pay of a statutory body or a corporation established by or under a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 State or Central Act, owned or controlled by State Government and any other Board or corporation as the State Government may having financial interest therein shall be a public servant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in the service and pay of this respondent Board, which is a statutory body established under the State Act and for all purposes is a public servant within the meaning of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and this Hon'ble Court has held that employees of this respondent Board are public servants. 6. It is submitted that under Section 124 of the BWSSB Act, 1964 all officers and servants of the Board shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 121 of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 7. This respondent submits that the grounds urged by the petitioner that this respondent should not have invoked Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules and hence the notification and corrigendum issued by this respondent directing the Upa-Lokayuktha to hold an enquiry against him who is not a government servant and the article of charge is liable to be set aside is without any basis. As stated above, under Section 124 of the BWSSB Act, 1964 all officers and servants of the Board shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 121 of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Further, this Hon'ble Court in an identical case, reported in ILR 2016 KAR 2051 has held thus: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 ...Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules states that the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A shall, not withstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13 of CCA Rules, bee applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government servants whose alleged misconducts has been investigated into by the Lokayuktha or an up- Lokayuktha either under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayukta Act or on reference from Government. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A deals with investigation and enquiry by the Lokayuktha and Upa-Lokayuktha. A reading of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules in its entirety makes it further clear that Lokayuktha or Upa- Lokayuktha may conduct investigation and enquire into the allegations made against the Government servant....." 8. This respondent submits that since the facts and material on record prima facie established that the petitioner has committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority of this respondent enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This respondent has acted strictly in accordance with law by following the due procedure.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 Hence, the respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed Statement of objections, the relevant portion of which is extracted below: “1. Enquiry No LOK/INQ/14a/119/2012 was initiated against Sri S.N.Jagdish, Meter reader O/o the Assistant Executive Engineer, W4, sub division B.W.S.S.B West of chord road, Bangalore on the orders of the disciplinary authority i.e. Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development department Bangalore and later Hon'ble Karnataka Upalokayuktha-1 nominated Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1 to conduct enquiry and to submit the report. Accordingly, Additional Registrar of Enquiries- 1 conducted enquiry and submitted report. 2. Factual aspect of the case is that Sri Kumar S/o Parashuram, Resident of Mahathma Gandhi Nagar slum area, Shankarmath Bangalore filed a complaint before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore city district and on the basis of said complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner. Afterwards, police officer secured panch witnesses to the station and entrustment proceedings were conducted in the station and the bribe amount of Rs 5000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant with instruction to again approach the petitioner and enquire about his - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 work and if the petitioner again demand for bribe then the amount shall be handed over to him and give signal to the police officer. A shadow was also sent with the complainant to observe the happenings. Afterwards, on 04.09.2010 when the complainant approached the petitioner and enquired about his work and the petitioner again demanded bribe and received the amount from the complainant and the complainant gave pre-arranged signal and the petitioner was caught red handed. Petitioner by demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant to show official favour, committed grave official misconduct. xxx xxx 5. WITH RESPECT TO PARA NO 5: The said Respondents submits that enquiry initiated by 3rd Respondent is without the jurisdiction as the petitioner is not a Government servant is denied as incorrect and misleading. Further that 3rd Respondent might have presumed that the petitioner is Government servant as seen from Annexure C of the Article of Charge dated 10.10.2012 and continued the enquiry against the petitioner is also misleading. Since Bangalore water supply and sewerage board has issued notification No SLW/72/LBW/82 dated 12.10.1982 to follow Karnataka Civil Service Rules till service regulations are formulated strictly by the board, the petitioner being the employee Of the board is deemed to be a Government servant within the meaning of KCSR. As defined under Section 2 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act 1984, the petitioner being an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 employee of Bangalore water supply and sewerage Board, which is Government organization, is a public servant and therefore the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha had sent the report under Section 12 (30 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act 1984 to Bangalore water supply and sewerage Board to take action and in turn BWSSB has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and entrusted the enquiry to Lokayuktha. Under KCS Rules, the disciplinary authority is having power to entrust the departmental enquiry to any pother person and also to Lokayuktha under Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules. 6. WITH RESPECT TO PARA NO.6: The said Respondents submit that, entrustment of enquiry by 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent against the petitioner and initiation of enquiry by 3rd Respondent is without authority of law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble High court in WP No 25502/2005 is denied as incorrect. Further that the entrustment of enquiry by 2nd Respondent to 3rd Respondent is without the jurisdiction and authority of law is also denied as incorrect. 7. The petitioner has filed the writ petition without proper understanding of the provisions of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act Karnataka civil services (CCA) Rules. Since BWSSB has adopted Karnataka civil services Rules in respect of the employees of the Board for conducting departmental enquiry, the entrustment of departmental enquiry against the petitioner by BWSSB to Lokayuktha is valid in law and therefore needs no interference from the Hon'ble High court. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 xxx 9. WITH RESPECT TO PARA NO 9 TO 12: …… The decision of Hon'ble High court referred by the petitioner in para 11 of the petition is not applicable to the facts of the case. None of the grounds stated by the petition in the petition are available to him to challenge the enquiry initiated by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner….” Hence, respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted in unison that the respondent No.2 has adopted the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 and therefore, it is entitled to entrust the enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that mere acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case would not automatically result in exonerating him in a departmental enquiry. He contends that the material sourced by the respondent No.3 would be looked into at the time of conducting an enquiry. He also contends that the standard of proof in a criminal case and in a domestic enquiry are different - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 and therefore, respondent No.3 would consider the material on record and take appropriate action. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sri S.V. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development and Others [ILR 2016 Kar 2051], where this Court had referred to two notifications dated 12.10.1982 and 01.03.2006 by which the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 were made applicable to officials of Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board (BWSSB) also. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 has relied on the following judgments: i. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Represented by Managing Director (Administration and HR) [(2019) 10 SCC 367]; ii. Mehiboobsab v. Upalokayukta and others [2002 (4) L.L.N. 869]; and iii. State of Karnataka and Another v. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC 563] to contend that a mere acquittal a delinquent employee in a criminal proceedings does not result in automatic exoneration in departmental proceedings and laid emphasis on the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 observations made in para No.17 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh (supra) and contended that the evidence of PW.4 would be sufficient to prove the complicity of the petitioner as PW.4 was an eye witness to the acceptance of the bribe by the petitioner. He also contended that if the Compact Disc (CD) containing the mobile recording are considered, the same would be sufficient to justify a departmental action against the petitioner. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate also reiterated the above contentions. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 11. The fact that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner goes to show that he was caught while accepting bribe for some official work. The respondent No.3 after conducting an enquiry, had submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to respondent No.1. He had in turn forwarded the report to the respondent - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 No.2 for necessary action. The respondent No.2 after considering the material placed on record by the respondent No.3, has permitted a departmental action against the petitioner under Rule 14A of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 is not applicable to an employee of the respondent No.2 – BWSSB is not well founded in view of a finding of the Division Bench of this Court in S.V. Ramesh (supra) where the Division Bench after referring to the two notifications dated 12.10.1982 and 01.03.2006 by which KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 were adopted to BWSSB, held that the employee of the BWSSB can be proceeded under Rule 14A of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957. Therefore, the first contention raised by the petitioner does not merit consideration. 13. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was already acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 by the Criminal Court in Special C.C No.344/2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 the case of Capt.M. Paul Anthony (supra) had categorically held that there cannot be any automatic termination of the departmental enquiry against a delinquent employee on his/her mere acquittal in the criminal case. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it would depend upon the circumstances and the findings recorded in the criminal case. It is apposite to refer to the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment: "34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, “the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom”. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the “raid and recovery” at the residence of the appellant were not - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand." 14. The judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Criminal Court in Special C.C No.344/2010 which is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the complainant/PW.1 had failed to identify the accused. PW.2 is the pancha witness who identified the notes that were handed to him by PW.1 and was a witness to the trap mahazar. PW.3 was a shadow witness who turned hostile. PW.4 was also said to be present at the time of the trap. 15. It is now stated that the complainant / PW.1 has expired. The Criminal Court in Special C.C No.344/2010 recorded a finding that throughout his evidence, PW.1 steadfastly claimed that the demand and acceptance of bribe was by a person named Mr. Jagannath and not the petitioner herein. Even in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recorded before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, it was mentioned that it was Mr.Jagannath who had demanded and received bribe from the complainant. The Criminal Court therefore held that the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 complainant / PW.1 did not state anything against the accused/petitioner herein and therefore, the evidence of the complainant / PW.1 did not help the prosecution to prove the alleged demand of bribe. 16. The shadow witness turned hostile while a Police official who was examined as PW.4 and who purportedly was present at the time of trap did not state that the accused / petitioner herein demanded bribe from the complainant / PW.1. Therefore, the Criminal Court in Special C.C No.344/2010 was convinced that there was no evidence sufficient enough to convict the accused / petitioner herein. 17. Since it is stated that the complainant / PW.1 is dead and the shadow witness has turned hostile, even if PWs.2 and 4 are examined in a departmental proceedings against the petitioner particularly in the light of their deposition in Special C.C No.344/2010, that would not be sufficient to sustain a departmental action. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned notification bearing No.BWSSB/CAO-S/16/2011 4525/2011-12 dated 16.01.2012 issued by the respondent - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39075 WP No. 39016 of 2016 No.2 entrusting the departmental enquiry to the respondent No.3 is quashed. Consequently, the Corrigendum bearing No. ¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/16/5349/2011-12 dated 05.03.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 and Articles of Charge bearing No.LOK/INQ/14-A/119/2012 dated 10.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.4 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all retirement benefits in accordance with law. The finding recorded by this Court in this order is in view of the finding recorded by the Court of the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A), Bengaluru (C.C.H. No.79), in its judgment dated 10.09.2018 in Special C.C No.344/2010 and shall not be treated as laying down any precedent that acquittal of the accused in a criminal case would result in his/her automatic exoneration in a departmental action. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66