- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 3812 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYADEVAPPA S/O SRI K BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT NERLIGE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT R/O CHILLUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND THE UNDER SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4 MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.11.2021 PASSED IN THE APPLICATION NO.7610/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28.11.2017 BEARING NO.LOK/ARE-4/ENQ-158/2011 (ANNEXURE-A6 OF THE APPLICATION) AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 BEARING NO.GraAaPA/08/GraPamKa/2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-A10 OF THE APPLICATION). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2021 in Application No.7610/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting petitioner's prayer to quash Annexure-A6 – enquiry report dated 28.12.2017 as well as Government order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure-A10), imposing punishment of denial of 25% of pensionary benefits perpetually is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Grama Panchayat Secretary, who was issued with articles of charge dated 05.01.2012, alleging demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.7,500/- for doing official favour to sanction a house under the ‘Ashraya Scheme’, Nerlige Village. On detailed enquiry, Enquiry Officer nominated by the Second respondent – Lokayukta, submitted enquiry report dated 28.12.2017, holding that the charges are proved. The enquiry report was forwarded to the first respondent-State Government along with the recommendation of the Upa- Lokayukta dated 02.01.2018, wherein the second respondent had recommended to the Government to impose punishment of denial of 25% of the pensionary benefit perpetually in exercise of Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSRs. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with second show cause notice dated 18.01.2018, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the report and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 recommendation of the Upa Lokayukta should not be accepted. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply on 26.02.2018. On considering the enquiry material as well as the reply submitted to the second show cause notice, the first respondent-State passed the order dated 11.07.2018 imposing penalty of denial of 25% of the pensionary benefits perpetually. Questioning the said Government order as well as enquiry report, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 09.11.2021 dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before the Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 5. Learned counsel Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha for petitioner mainly contends that the second respondent – Upa Lokayukta, has no jurisdiction to recommend punishment under Rule 214 of KCSRs. As such, the punishment imposed by the first respondent – State, based on such recommendation is wholly illegal and submits that the same needs to be interfered with. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8594/2012 dated 18.02.2015 (THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. JAVARAE GOWDA AND ANOTHER). 6. On a Court query with regard to the criminal case against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Special C.C.No.5/2009, by judgment dated 29.09.2015, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 same is pending in Criminal Appeal No.1200/2015 before this Court, whereunder, sentence against the petitioner is stayed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is imposed with punishment of denial of 25% of the pensionary benefit perpetually on the proved misconduct of demanding and accepting illegal gratification/bribe for doing the official favour of allotting a house under ‘Ashraya Scheme’. For a proved misconduct of illegal gratification/bribery, if he were to be in service, the punishment would have been dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. In the instant case, the petitioner is imposed with denial of 25% of pensionary benefits perpetually. 9. It is rather difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Upa Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to recommend the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 punishment. Sub-Rule (2)(d) of Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 empowers the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be, to forward the enquiry report along with the recommendation. The recommendation includes with regard to penalty also. In case of a retired employee, the punishment could be imposed only under Rule 214 of KCSRs, i.e., withholding pension or pensionary benefits permanently or for a specific period partly or the entire pensionary benefits. 10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Javaregowda (supra) would indicate that merely on recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, no punishment could be imposed by the State Government. It is the bounden duty of the State Government to apply its mind and examine entire material along with the recommendation as well as reply of the delinquent servant, if submitted to second show cause notice. In the instant case, the impugned order of punishment dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 11.07.2018 (Annexure-A10) indicates the application of mind by the State – Disciplinary Authority as well as consideration of the entire enquiry material. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. 11. The enquiry report would indicate that to prove the allegation against respondent, the State examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, whereas the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Enquiry Officer based on the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is proved i.e., the demand and acceptance of bribe/legal gratification. At paragraph 51 of the enquiry report it is recorded as follows: “51. The oral and documentary evidence on record show that, the DGO while was working as gram panchayath secretary, Nerlige grama panchayath, Davanagere Taluk and District, in respect of grant sanctioned to the mother of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 complainant under “Ashraya Scheme” in Nerlige village, the DGO demanded bribe amount of Rs.750/- to give cheque in respect of 1st installment cheque of Rs.7,500/- and further demanded a bribe of Rs.1,500/- for releasing 2nd installment cheque of Rs.7,500/- but gave cheque to her on intervention of a member of Nerlige village panchayath and further when the complainant approached the DGO on 14.03.2009 asked to give Rs.2,100/- and received the said bribe of Rs.2,100/- on 26.03.2009 to show official favour to the complainant and his mother Smt.Ramanibai. DGO has failed to give any acceptable or satisfactory reasons for possession of the tainted amount.” 12. For a proved misconduct of accepting bribe/illegal gratification, withholding of 25% of pensionary benefits perpetually is not disproportionate. The punishment imposed is reasonable and proportionate to the gravity and nature of charge. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Government has taken lenient view and has imposed a lesser punishment for proved misconduct of demanding accepting bribe. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9969-DB WP No. 3812 of 2022 13. In view of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Act in Special C.C.No.5/2009 by the Principal District Judge, Davanagere, by Judgment dated 29.09.2015, in terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs, the State is empowered to pass an order withholding or withdrawing pension or part thereof permanently or for a specified period. 14. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22