- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 74 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI V. R. LOKESH, S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR, NUGGENAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT, R/AT LEKHA NILAYA, NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL, HONNENAHALLI EXTENSION, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-570072. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2022 PASSED IN A.No.4082/2020 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) BY THE KSAT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4082/2020 has approached this Court assailing the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 3. The petitioner, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had challenged the order dated 26.11.2010 imposing penalty, the order dated 30.11.2016 rejecting the appeal, and the endorsement dated 11.06.2020 rejecting the representation dated 30.01.2020. The petitioner, while working as Second Division Assistant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Sakkaleshpur, was issued a charge memo on 19.01.2009 alleging that he had made threatening calls to Group-D employees from the office telephone of the Assistant Commissioner, Sakkaleshpur, and had also burnt nine government files kept on the table of the Assistant Commissioner. 3.1 The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Respondent No.3 appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Hassan as the Enquiry Officer. In the meantime, criminal proceedings were also initiated in C.C. No.291/2008 for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued and, after - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 considering the petitioner’s reply, an order of punishment was passed on 26.11.2010. 3.2 Subsequently, the petitioner came to be acquitted in the criminal case on 07.09.2013. In view of the acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.08.2014 seeking cancellation of the penalty. The petitioner also preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 on 30.08.2016 challenging the penalty order dated 26.11.2010. The Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the appeal on 30.11.2016 on the ground of delay and laches. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 30.01.2020, which came to be rejected by endorsement dated 11.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2. 3.3 Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 05.10.2020 challenging the penalty order dated 26.11.2010, the appellate order dated 30.11.2016, and the endorsement dated 11.06.2020. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application both on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 4. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the enquiry proceedings ought to have been deferred pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident. It is contended that the order of penalty having been passed prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, upon the petitioner’s acquittal, a representation was filed seeking cancellation of the penalty, which was not considered. Consequently, an appeal came to be filed, which was dismissed on 30.11.2016 solely on the ground of delay and laches. A further representation dated 30.01.2020 seeking the same relief was also rejected by endorsement dated 11.06.2020 without due application of mind. 4.1 It is urged that the petitioner was honorably acquitted in C.C. No.291/2008 by judgment dated 07.09.2013, and that such acquittal was on merits upon appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the punishment imposed in the departmental enquiry on the very same set of allegations and evidence is not sustainable. Learned counsel submits that though the penalty order was passed on 26.11.2010, the petitioner, while awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings, could not have availed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 of any remedy until after the acquittal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been diligently pursuing his remedy by filing representations and an appeal before the competent authority. Hence, rejection of the application by the Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches is unsustainable. 4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry was concluded without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and without due consideration of his written statement. It is further submitted that, the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal proceedings on the charge of burning nine government files, he is entitled to exoneration in the departmental proceedings as well. Learned counsel contends that once a delinquent official is acquitted in criminal proceedings, the enquiry report founded on the very same set of evidence cannot run contrary to the order of acquittal. It is further urged that the order of penalty has been passed without due consideration of the petitioner’s reply. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the order of penalty was passed in 2010, and the petitioner did not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 pursue any remedy against the said order in time. It is contended that only after the order of acquittal in 2013, the petitioner sought to avail an effective remedy in 2016. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that departmental proceedings are independent of the outcome of criminal proceedings, and therefore, the contention that the petitioner was awaiting the result of the criminal case is untenable. The explanation offered for the delay is not acceptable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. We note that a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 19.01.2009 and, after conclusion of the enquiry, an order of penalty was passed on 26.11.2010. The charges on the basis of which the enquiry report came to be submitted are as follows: "zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-1 ²æà «.Dgï.¯ÉÆÃPÉñï, ¢é.zÀ.¸À. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀ (ºÁ° CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ) DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢:30/10/2008 gÀAzÀÄ PÀbÉÃj ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄÄVzÀ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 £ÀAvÀgÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀbÉÃjUÉ DUÀ«Ä¹ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ²æà PÉñÀªÀªÀÄÆwð, r UÀÆæ¥ï £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁt¬ÄAzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÉƨÉʯï zÀÆgÀªÁtÂUÀ½UÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðj zÀÆgÀªÁtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 19 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (3) (1) III £ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ F DgÉÆÃ¥À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-2 ²æà «.Dgï.¯ÉÆÃPÉñï, ¢é.zÀ.¸À. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀ (ºÁ° CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ) DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢: 30/10/2008 gÀAzÀÄ PÀbÉÃj ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀbÉÃj ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀ mÉç¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸À»UÁV l¥Á®Ä ¥Áår£À°è PÀnÖnÖzÀÝ 9 ¸ÀPÁðj PÀqÀvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §¸ÀªÀ£À¥ÁzÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ PɼÀUÉ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ zÀĪÀðvÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ wêÀævÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À ºÁUÀÆ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ (3) (1) III £ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä F DgÉÆÃ¥À. zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-3 ²æà «.Dgï.¯ÉÆÃPÉñï, ¢é.zÀ.¸À. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀ (ºÁ° CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ) DzÀ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÅgÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ £ÀA: ¦.¹.Dgï 233/08 zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1/11/2008 jAzÀ 10/12/2008 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÁ¸À£À f¯Áè G¥À PÁgÁUÀȺÀzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ §AzsÀ£ÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ zÀĪÀðvÀ£É ºÁUÀÆ wêÀævÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVzÀÄÝ, EzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1966 gÀ 2 (3) (1) III £ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä F DgÉÆÃ¥À." 8. The challenge to the order of penalty was made only after the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal proceedings on 07.09.2013. The acquittal was on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidence of witnesses and documentary material, held that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has sought to contend that sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not granted, the records indicate that the petitioner had, in fact, cross-examined the witnesses. Prior to passing of the penalty order, adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner insofar as the enquiry report is concerned, if genuine, could have been agitated in an appeal, which remedy the petitioner did not avail for nearly six years. Even after dismissal of the appeal on 30.11.2016, the application before the Tribunal came to be filed only on 05.10.2020, again after an inordinate delay of almost four years. It is to be reiterated that the very grounds urged against the penalty order gave rise - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 to an immediate and independent cause of action, without there being any necessity to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 9. In that view of the matter, no error or illegality is discernible in the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from the said ground, the Tribunal has also examined the application on merits. Two contentions were urged before the Tribunal on merits. First, it was contended that in view of the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case, the departmental enquiry and the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Second, it was contended that there is no evidence to substantiate the charges. 10. It is a settled position that criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are two distinct remedies serving different purposes. The standard of proof in the two proceedings is different. In criminal proceedings, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings, proof on the preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Consequently, the two proceedings are independent and not interdependent. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36732-DB WP No. 74 of 2023 11. Furthermore, the Tribunal, upon perusal of the evidence, held that the penalty order was passed after due consideration of the entire material, including the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. The findings of the Tribunal, both on the ground of delay and on the other contentions, are supported by cogent reasons. We find no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal that would warrant interference by this Court. 12. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28