- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.11032 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI.NARASIMA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, FIRST DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT (RETIRED), S/O YAMANAPPA, C/O SATHYANARAYAN, SRINIVAS COOL DRINKS, NEAR KARADIGUDDA, VALMIKI CIRCLE, MANVI, MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 123. PRESENTLY RESIDING IN NO.22, 7TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY EDUCATION), MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION NO.6962/2017 AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The applicant in application No.6962/2017 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ('the Tribunal' for short) is before us in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.11.2018. 2. The Tribunal, by order dated 20.11.2018 allowed the application in part, substituting the quantum of punishment that is, withholding 50% of the monthly pension on a permanent basis to 25% with effect from 01.12.2018. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- Per applicant:- 5. The applicant was working as a First Division Assistant with the Department of Education. While he was working as a First Division Assistant in the Office of the Block Education Officer, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District, he is stated to have demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- and received the same as illegal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 gratification on 29.07.2005 in his office. A trap was laid on the complaint of one Sri Dyavalappa Unnibhavi and was successful. On the basis of the complaint and the successful trap, the police attached to Lokayukta registered Special Case No.85/2005 and subsequently filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Special Court. 6. On the same set of allegations, a departmental enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta in terms of Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short). An Enquiry Officer was appointed who after issuance of the charge-sheet and considering the statement of defence put forth by the applicant, proceeded to hold the enquiry and subsequently held that the charges levelled against the applicant were proved and forwarded his enquiry report (Annexure-A5) dated 17.03.2017 to the Lokayukta. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 7. As the applicant retired prior to the completion of the enquiry, that is on 31.05.2016, the Lokayukta forwarded the report along with the recommendation of withholding 50% of the monthly pension on permanent basis, since it was a case of corruption. 8. The Government, upon receipt of the report and recommendation, forwarded the same along with a second show cause notice, calling upon the applicant to show his cause for the punishment. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Not satisfied with the reply given by the applicant, the Government imposed a punishment of withholding 50% of the monthly pension on a permanent basis as penalty. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.6962/2017. 9. The applicant, before the Tribunal contended that he had been honourably acquitted on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 the same set of allegations in Special Case (P.C.) No.85/2005 by the learned Special Judge, Koppal, vide judgment dated 06.11.2009. Though the judgment has been produced before the Enquiry Officer, the same was not considered and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges on the same set of allegations had been proved. The Government, without considering the order of acquittal by the Sessions Court, mechanically accepted the recommendation of the Lokayukta and without any independent application of mind, passed the order. He further contended that the quantum of punishment imposed on him was disproportionate and shocking, against the charge levelled. 10. On notice, the State opposed the application and submitted that the lis involved in the case relates to a demand for illegal gratification and is a serious offence which affects the economic fabric of society. The contention that withholding 50% of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 the monthly pension is neither disproportionate nor shocking. The acquittal order cannot be termed as honourable acquittal as contended by the applicant, but the same was based on the absence of proof and the fact that the complainant himself had turned hostile. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had not got any promotion in service, he joined as a First Division Assistant and retired as a First Division Assistant. He has a wife and two sons who are dependent on him and therefore, considering his financial condition, he requested the Tribunal to tone down the quantum of punishment, alternatively. 12. The Tribunal, having considered the rival submissions placed by the parties in this case was of the opinion that the mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a bar in holding a departmental enquiry. The Tribunal further observed that the applicant, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 his reply to the second show cause notice issued by the Government, had made a request for taking a lenient view, as it would be very difficult for him to lead life if 50% of his monthly pension was deducted on a permanent basis. The Tribunal having considered the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and the delay in holding the enquiry as well as the final order and considering the alleged misconduct which took place in the year 2005 and ended in departmental enquiry imposing penalty after a considerable delay by an order passed in 2017, which took almost 12 years, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, though the order passed does not warrant any interference, toned down the punishment of withholding 50% with that of 25% on a permanent basis with effect from 01.12.2018., It is this order passed by the Tribunal that is called in question by the applicant in the present petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 13. Heard Sri.B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Prathibha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents and perused the entire petition papers. 14. Sri.B.S.Raghu Prasad, reiterating the very same grounds urged before the Tribunal tries to impress upon us that the acquittal by the Sessions Court amounts to honourable acquittal and the departmental enquiry on the very same set of allegations is unwarranted. The delay caused in holding the enquiry for an incident which took place in the year 2005, the belated entrustment of the enquiry and the conclusion of the enquiry in 2017 are strong circumstances in favour of the applicant to seek for setting aside of the penalty imposed. He sought to allow the petition and set aside the order passed by the Government in its entirety by quashing the order passed by the Tribunal, consequently allow the application in its entirety. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 15. In contrast to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, Smt.Prathibha.R.K., argued in support of the order passed by the Tribunal and the penalty imposed, stating that the enquiry having been proved has not been disturbed by the Tribunal and that in limited judicial review, the Court cannot once again go into the matter only on the basis of acquittal of the charge, which has already been considered by the Tribunal and sought dismissal of the petition. 16. A perusal of order passed by the Sessions Court clearly shows that the acquittal resulted due to the absence of evidence, since the complainant himself turned hostile. In those circumstances, the applicant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt. Before the departmental enquiry, on the test of preponderance of probabilities, the charges levelled were proved. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material placed on record was of the opinion - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 that the applicant has been given fair opportunity to defend himself effectively in the departmental enquiry and that, on the materials produced the Enquiry Officer assessed the entire evidence on the test of preponderance of probabilities, and therefore, was of the opinion that the enquiry does not suffer from any infirmities. In these circumstances, there is nothing much left for us to deliberate upon the enquiry and the penalty order and the order of the Tribunal impugned in the narrow compass of judicial review. The Tribunal in the background of delay in holding the enquiry for an incident which had occurred in 2005 and the enquiry having been initiated and completed in 2017, taking nearly 12 years for conclusion, toned down the penalty imposed from 50% to that of 25%. 17. Having considered the entire order passed by the Tribunal, we are not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52597-DB WP No. 11032 of 2021 that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge proved and shocks the conscience of the Court. Resultantly, the petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn