- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11541 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) IN WP No. 10397/2022 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA) AND: 1. SRI S RAMU S/O LATE SIDDACHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEAS RETIRED AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT R/A NO.4417, 8TH CROSS STATE. MARY'S ROAD N.R MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 007 2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2020 IN APPLICATION NO. 4179/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. IN WP NO. 11541/2023 BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. S. RAMU S/O LATE SIDDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, R/A NO. 4417, 8TH CROSS, ST. MARY'S ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 007. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GA.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-4179/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE- A. THESE PETITIONS, 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 RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) 1. The State has preferred W.P. No.10397/2022 and the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta has preferred W.P. No.11541/2023, both assailing the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.4179/2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the applicant, set aside the order dated 10.07.2020 bearing No. TD 57 TDS 2019 issued by the State and directed the State to extend all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, to which the applicant was found legally entitled. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petitions are that the applicant was appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 25.05.1978 and was subsequently promoted as a First Division Assistant in January 1997. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.03.2013. 3. While he was serving in the office of the Regional Transport Office, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, during the years 2007–2008, a complaint was lodged by one Syed Samiulla before the Karnataka Lokayukta Police alleging that the applicant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification for processing permit files relating to auto-rickshaw loans sanctioned by the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.20/2007 was registered against the applicant and the concerned Regional Transport Officer under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). A trap was laid, however, the same did not yield results. Subsequently, the Bengaluru Rural Lokayukta Police transferred the matter to the Bengaluru Urban Lokayukta Police on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, Crime No.58/2008 came to be registered and a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and two others on 30.05.2009. 4. Pursuant to the said complaint and the trap proceedings, the Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta initiated a suo motu investigation and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Acting on the said report, the State entrusted a departmental enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Accordingly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and charges were framed against the applicant as under: "That you DGO, Ramu (here in after referred to as Delinquent Government Servant, in short DGO), while working as First Division Assistant, Regional Transport Office, Indiranagar, Bangalore, were demanding a bribe of Rs.20,000/-for eight Autorikshaw's (Rs.2,500/- per one Autorikshaw) for processing the files relating to the eight beneficiaries who had availed loan, from The Minorities Development Corporation, Bangalore and for issuing permission letter and permit to them and that, on 27/11/2007, you demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant Sri. Syed Samiulla S/o Syed Chottu Saheb, President of Karnataka - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 Integrated Welfare Society, K.G.Halli, No.247, 4th Cross, 1st Main B Street, Vinobanagar, Bangalore-45, for doing the above mentioned official work and thereby you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed an act of misconduct which is unbecoming of a Government Servant under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966." 5. The enquiry was duly conducted, during which the complainant and the shadow witness to the trap were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.3. In support of the case of the prosecution, 16 documents were produced and marked as Exs P1 to P16. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the applicant stood proved and, accordingly, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the penalty of permanent withholding of 50% of the pension payable to the applicant. 7. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.4179/2020. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 8. The Tribunal, upon re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, passed the impugned order by setting aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Heard Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, Sri Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Lokayukta. 10. Apart from raising several contentions, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the Disciplinary Authority, upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly imposed the penalty of permanent withholding of 50% of the pension of the applicant. 11. It is further contended that, though the complainant and the shadow witness to the trap had turned hostile, PW.3—the Investigating Officer has categorically deposed regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification by the applicant. It is also submitted that the mahazar drawn in the course of investigation clearly establishes that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered at the instance of the applicant. According to him, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 these vital aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal, rendering the impugned order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. It is further contended that though the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case, i.e., Spl. C.C. No.181/2009, the same, by itself, cannot constitute a ground to set aside the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, in view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. On the said basis, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Lokayukta adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate and prays to allow the petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the enquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority are unsustainable both in law and on facts, for the reason that no material evidence was placed before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the charges levelled against the applicant. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer has misread - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have turned completely hostile to the prosecution case. 15. It is further contented that the testimony of P.W.3—the Investigating Officer is not corroborated by any independent witness, and therefore, cannot form the sole basis for sustaining the charges. In the absence of reliable and corroborative evidence, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are stated to be perverse and unsustainable in law. In such circumstances, it is contended that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously perused the entire material available on record, including the enquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 17. Upon careful examination of the enquiry report, we find merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 applicant that, except the testimony of PW.3—the Investigating Officer, there is absolutely no incriminating material or independent evidence was adduced by the Presenting Officer before the Enquiry Officer to establish the charges against the applicant. It is an admitted position that there is no specific evidence of demand of illegal gratification attributable to the applicant. 18. The case of the State proceeds on the premise that, to meet the alleged demands of the Transport Officer, the applicant demanded and received the amount in question. However, the complainant and the shadow witness to the trap have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. 19. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case registered against the applicant in Spl. C.C. No.181/2009 has culminated in acquittal by judgment dated 27.02.2023. Upon a careful re- appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the charges levelled against the applicant have not been proved. The case, therefore, falls within the category of a “no - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29272-DB WP No. 10397 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11541 of 2023 evidence case”. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse, and the consequential order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained in law. The Tribunal has rightly considered these aspects in detail and has, by a well-reasoned order, set aside the same. 20. Consequently, we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in allowing the application filed by the applicant and in setting aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23