- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 385 OF 2022 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE 1) 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI CHANNAPPA H.B., S/O LATE SRI B CHADNRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCCN: SHIRASTEDAR (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL) REVENUE SECRETARIAT (SERVICES-1) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. R/AT 107, MANJU, 1ST BLOCK 2ND STAGE, NEAR POLICE CHOWKI VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.A. KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNEMNT ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANENXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner-Lokayukta is before this Court being aggrieved by the Government Order dated 27.02.2020, produced at Annexure-A, in terms of which, the respondent No.2 has been reinstated to his service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon a complaint of demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- made by one Rajashekhar, a successful trap was laid. Charge sheet was also filed. However, respondent No.2 has been acquitted for the reasons of witnesses not supporting the case of prosecution. He submits that in the Disciplinary Enquiry which was entrusted to the petitioner- Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, a report was submitted on 23.10.2017 for the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 having been proved and established by the disciplinary authority. On the enquiry being - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 completed by the petitioner-Lokayuktha, a recommendation was made to the competent authority to accept the report of the enquiry officer and to impose a penalty of dismissal of service of respondent No.2 under Rule 8 (viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. The disciplinary authority however has passed the impugned order rejecting the recommendation and reinstating the respondent No.2. He submits that there is no reason justifying the impugned order except cryptic observation with reference to the inquiry report and no discussions or analysis is made by the respondent No.1. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent No.2 resulted in his honorable acquittal. In that, the specific allegation/charge of demand and acceptance has not been proved and established by the prosecution. He submits even in the Disciplinary Enquiry the said allegation has not been proved in the manner known to law. He refers to unnumbered second paragraph of page 30 to the writ petition, wherein the respondent No.1 has referred to the contents of the report and the documents and having been convinced and satisfied with regard to there being no case of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 demand and acceptance made out against the respondent No. 2, he insists that impugned order was passed reinstating him to the post is justified. Hence seeks for dismissal of petition. 4. Heard. Perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished copy of the judgment dated 24.04.2019 in Special (PC) Case No.2/2011 which was instituted against respondent No.2. Perusal of which will indicate that the Special Court after going through the records and the evidence of the witnesses has found respondent No.2 herein being innocent of the charges alleged against him on merits. Therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 of, his honorable acquittal finds merits. 6. As regards the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order, un-numbered paragraph 2 and the operative portion of the order at page 30 of the writ petition reads as under; "ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ DqÀ½vÀ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¥Á¢vÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß/zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¨ÉÃrPÉ EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀqÀvÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀ §½ E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ²gÀ¸ÉÛÃzÁgï/G¥ÀvÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¹, ªÀeÁUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¨sÀvÉå ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðj®èªÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁð¤¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀAE 225 ©JAJA 2018 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.02.2020 "ಪಾವೆಯ ವ ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ ನೆಯ , ೕ ೆ.. ಚನಪ , ಆ".ಆ".#. ರೇ$ಾ" %ಾಲೂಕು ಕ)ೇ , ವ*ಗ+ ,ೆ (ಪಸುತ ವ/ಾ0ೊಂಡ ೌಕರರು) ಇವರನು ತ4ಣ6ಂದ /ಾ 0ೆ ಬರುವಂ%ೆ ರೇ$ಾ"/ಉಪತಹೕಾ;" ಹು$ೆ;ಯ ಪ<ನ"ಾ=> ಆ$ೇ$ೆ. ಸದ ೌಕರರು ಕೂಡೇ ?ಾ$ೇಕ ಆಯುಕರ ಕ@ೇ , AೆಂಗಳBರು Cಾಗ ಇ ವರ6 DಾEFೊಳGHವ<ದು. ಸದ ಯವರು ೇIೆJಂದ ವ/ಾ0ೊಂಡ 6ಾಂಕ6ಂದ ಇ ಯವKೆ0ೆ ಕತLವMವಲದ ಅವNOಂದು ಾಗೂ ಆ ಅವNಯ Iೇತನ ಭ%ೆM ಪQೆಯಲು ಅಹLರಲIೆಂದು ಪ ಗRಸಾS$ೆ. ಕಾLಟಕ KಾಜM?ಾಲರ ಆ$ೇVಾನುಾರ ಮತು ಅವರ ೆಸ ನ , (.ಎY.CಾಗM) ಸFಾLರದ ಅNೕನ FಾಯLದL ಕಂ$ಾಯ ಇಾZೆ(ೇIೆಗಳG-1)" 7. Though there is no elaborate discussion and analysis as pointed by the counsel for the petitioner, there is indeed reference to the proceedings of disciplinary enquiry, documents enclosed therewith and also with regard to prosecution failing to prove element of demand and acceptance, it is on these reasons the impugned order has been passed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28340 WP No. 385 of 2022 8. This Court do not see any illegality or irregularity in respondent No.1 passing the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 produced at Annexure-A. Petition is disposed of accordingly. These observations are only to the extent of this writ petition. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9