Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 91167 (KAR)

SHRI N CHANDRASHEKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36537/2017 · 2025-09-11

K V Aravind, S G Pandit

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 36537 OF 2017 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1 . SHRI N. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O. T. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST. (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL) R/AT HITLA POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIDHAR G. BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O/O THE COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. 3 . THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.7.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN A. No.8990/2014 AT ANNEXURE-B AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.11.2014 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A12 IN A. No.8990/2014 AS NULL AND VOID WITH ALL CONSEQUENTLY BENEFITS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2025, THIS DAY K. V. ARAVIND J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 C.A.V. ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. Sridhar G. Bidre, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.8990/2014 has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.11.2002 as a Village Accountant in the Revenue Department. While discharging his duties as Village Accountant at Kavali, a trap was laid against him by the Lokayukta Police on 30.08.2007, pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Sri. N.V. Chandrashekar. The - 4 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 complainant alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for effecting change of Khata in his name in respect of Survey No.218 of Talagunda Village. Consequently, a case came to be registered in Crime No.05/2007 by the Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was tried before the Special Court, which ultimately resulted in the petitioner’s acquittal on 30.06.2012. 4. Simultaneously, the Government entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry, pursuant to which Articles of Charge were issued. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges as proved, and consequently, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. The Tribunal, at the instance of the petitioner, rejected the application holding that the charges stood proved through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. - 5 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 5. Sri. Shidhar G. Bidre, learned counsel for Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complainant did not support the prosecution. It is contended that though the complainant entered the witness box as PW.1, in his cross- examination he admitted that the petitioner had not demanded any money for doing his work. Learned counsel further submits that PW.2 also admitted that there was neither demand nor acceptance of any bribe. It is urged that the Enquiry Officer, by misreading the evidence, submitted a report holding the charges proved. It is further contended that the Tribunal, being influenced by the findings in the enquiry report without independently appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses, wrongly dismissed the application and confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service. 6. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner to establish the charge. Hence, the enquiry report, being contrary to the evidence on record, suffers from perversity. It is further contended - 6 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 that the Tribunal placed reliance on the provisions of the Evidence Act, which are strictly not applicable to departmental enquiries. 7. Per contra, Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is sufficient to establish the charge against the petitioner. It is contended that the enquiry report as well as the order of the Tribunal are based on the evidence available on record. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ papers. 9. Respondent No.3 framed Articles of Charge against the petitioner alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for effecting change of Khata. In the enquiry, the complainant was examined as PW.1, the shadow witness as PW.2, and the Investigating Officer as PW.3. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge - 7 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 against the petitioner stood proved, relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, and recorded that their testimonies did not disclose any material contradictions. The acquittal in the criminal proceedings in Special (PC) Case No.5/2008 before the Special Court was disregarded, holding that the same had no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. 10. The Tribunal, while noticing that PW.1- complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution, observed that due to lapse of time, PW.1 appeared to have been won over. The Tribunal further placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW.2-shadow witness. The specific contention urged by the petitioner is that both the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal recorded perverse findings by misreading the evidence. It is only for this limited purpose that we proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses. 11. PW.1, the complainant, in his examination-in- chief deposed that the petitioner demanded a bribe of - 8 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 Rs.2,000/- and narrated the steps taken thereafter, commencing from the filing of the complaint up to the trap. However, in his cross-examination by the petitioner/Delinquent Government Officer (DGO), he categorically admitted that the DGO had not demanded any money and that the subsequent actions had taken place at the instance of the police. PW.1 went to the extent of denying having lodged any written complaint against the DGO. He further stated that the complaint on record was typed by the police at the police station and that its contents were not explained to him. He also asserted that the further actions, including visiting the office of the DGO and handing over the cash, were carried out at the instance of the Police Inspector. 12. PW.2, the shadow witness, categorically admitted that the conversation between the DGO and the complainant was not audible, though he later stated that it was audible. In Special (PC) Case No.5/2008 before the Special Judge, for the very same suggestion, PW.2 deposed that the conversation between the DGO and the - 9 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 complainant was not audible. He further admitted that he had not seen the happenings or what transpired between the DGO and the complainant inside the room. The Enquiry Officer, without considering the admissions made in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, erroneously concluded that the charge was proved. 13. The Tribunal, in the absence of any cogent evidence, held that PW.1 had been won over. There is, however, no corroborative material to support such a finding. The Tribunal could not have accepted the statement of a witness in examination-in-chief while disregarding the cross-examination. For a proper appreciation of evidence, both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination are required to be read together. If the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is so considered, it is evident that both witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal thus committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to impose the penalty. - 10 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 14. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to departmental enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. However, such remedy cannot be denied if the case falls within the well- recognised exceptions. In the present case, the petitioner has demonstrated that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal are based on a misreading of the evidence and it is a case of no evidence. This submission stands fortified upon a careful reading of the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2. We also notice inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Any finding recorded contrary to the evidence on record results in perversity. When the impugned order suffers from perversity, this Court would be justified in exercising its power of judicial review. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner has been acquitted on the very same charge in the criminal proceedings, wherein the prosecution relied upon identical evidence, the same would have a bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. It is, - 11 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 however, well settled that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and independent, governed by different parameters. The standard of proof required in both is also different. An acquittal in a criminal case does not, by itself, result in automatic exoneration in disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained merely in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, is unsustainable. 16. However, as observed above it is a case of no evidence. PWs.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the disciplinary authority. PW.1 has even denied the filing of complaint itself. It is pertinent to note that PW.1, the complainant, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the DGO had not demanded any money and that the entire proceedings were initiated at the instance of the police. PW.2, the shadow witness, admitted that the conversation between the DGO and the complainant was not audible and that he had not witnessed what transpired - 12 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 inside the room. The Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal, without properly appreciating these admissions, erroneously relied upon the examination-in-chief of PWs.1 and 2 to hold the charge proved. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the event of success of the petitioner and restoration of his appointment, continuity of service and seniority with backwages be granted. We are inclined to direct continuity of service and seniority. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.11.2014 and has not demonstrated that he was not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. It is well settled that grant of backwages upon reinstatement is not automatic, but depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. Unless the petitioner establishes that during the period of deprivation of employment he was not gainfully employed, he would not be entitled to backwages upon reinstatement. In the absence of any such pleadings or evidence, we are not inclined to grant backwages. - 13 - WP No. 36537 of 2017 19. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order in Application No.8990/2014 dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. (iii) The order of penalty dated 05.11.2014 bearing No.KamE/7/BDA/2009, Bengaluru, is set aside. (iv) The petitioner is reinstated to service with continuity of service and restoring his seniority. (v) The petitioner is not entitled to backwages from the period of dismissal till reinstatement. *(vi) Time for compliance shall be three months from 22.09.2025. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU * Corrected vide Court Order dated 22.09.2025.