- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 9936 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M. S. ESHWARAIAH, S/O LATE M. K. SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ARMED POLICE CONSTABLE (H.C.NO.60), KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, 3RD BATTALION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU- 34 AND: R/A No.330, 28TH BLOCK, HUDCO, KSRP QUARTERS, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-34. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU- 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, BENGALURU- 560001. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 3. THE COMMANDANT 4TH BATTALION, K.S.R.P., KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU- 560034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. R. RAJENDRA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.6789/2017 ON THE FILE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.6789/2017. 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.Nagesh S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court impugning the order dated 06.07.2020 passed in Application No.6789/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the service as an Armed Police Constable. The petitioner was transferred from Mysuru to Bengaluru in the year 2002 and his services were attached to the 4th Battalion, Karnataka State Reserve Police. While he was in service at Bengaluru, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.8/2008 under Section 498A of IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3.1 On the complaint lodged by Smt. Mamatha, the wife of the petitioner’s brother, an FIR was registered and the petitioner was kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 24.02.2009 and was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. The order of suspension was revoked on 04.03.2010 and thereafter the petitioner was taken back to duty. 3.2 A charge memo was issued to the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority passed an order of penalty dated 06.05.2010 dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2—the appellate authority. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 appellate authority, by order dated 06.10.2010, modified the order of penalty from dismissal to reduction of the pay of the applicant to the minimum of the scale for a period of five years and treated the period of suspension as suspension only. 3.3 The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition against the order of the appellate authority before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 rejected the revision petition on 03.03.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner came to be acquitted in the criminal case in S.C. No.276/2012 by judgment dated 15.06.2016. Based on the order of acquittal, the petitioner preferred another revision petition seeking reconsideration of the earlier order, which resulted in the endorsement dated 30.05.2017 rejecting the revision petition. 3.4 The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application. 4. Sri Nagesh S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not residing with his brother when Smt. Mamatha lodged the complaint alleging dowry harassment. It is contended that the petitioner was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 falsely implicated in the criminal case due to a dispute between Smt. Mamatha and her husband, the petitioner’s brother. Learned counsel submits that on the alleged date of the incident, the petitioner was not residing with his brother and was living separately. 4.1 It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, after an elaborate trial, acquitted the petitioner of the charged offences. Learned counsel submits that the Sessions Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not involved in the incident for which the charges were framed. In view of the categorical finding that there was no evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner, the respondent-authorities have committed an error in not setting aside the order of penalty. 5. Per contra, Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the enquiry officer has recorded the evidence of Smt. Mamatha, the wife of Sri Mahalingaiah, the brother of the petitioner, and has held that the charges are proved. The findings and conclusions of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 5.1 It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings cannot be interfered with. It is submitted that the appellate authority, taking a lenient view, modified the order of dismissal from service to reduction of the pay scale and treated the period of suspension as suspension only. It is submitted that in the light of the lenient view taken by the appellate authority, the order of the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order of penalty is justified. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 7. The dates and events are not in dispute. Based on the complaint by Smt. Mamatha and subsequent FIR, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by appointing an enquiry officer and articles of charge. The following charges were framed against the petitioner. "1.
ೇೆ 99 ಎಂ.ಎ.ಈಶ ರಯ ,  ದಳ, 4ೇ ಪೆ, ೆ.ಎ.ಆ.. ಆದ ೕವ ಹಲಸೂರು ೇ! ಮ#$ಾ &'ೕ (ಾ)ೆ, ಗುೆ+ ಸಂ,ೆ :08/2009 ಕಲಂ 498(ಎ) .ಾ.ದ.ಸಂ, /ೆ01 3 ಮತು3 4 4 ಆ56 ಪ7ಕರಣದ'9 .ಾ:;ಾ: ದಸ3:< ಕ7ಮೊ=ಳ ಾ: >ಸು3 ಇ@ಾ,ೆ ೆ ಸಲ9ದ Aೂೕರ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 ದುನCಡEೆಯ ಕೃತ ವೆ+ಸ:ರುG3ೕHೆಂಬ ಆHೋಪವನು+ ಮJ Kೕ@ೆ Lೊ<ಸ@ಾ:ೆ. 2. ೕವ ಮJ ಸLೋದರ (ತಮJ) ಮLಾ'ಂಗಯ ರವರ ಪG+ >7ೕಮG ಮಮತರವ< ೆ ವರದM)ೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂNದಂEೆ Oಾನಕ ಮತು3 ೈ#ಕ #ಂ/ೆ ೕ4ದ ಕೃತ ದ'9 .ಾ:ೕಾರHಾ: >ಸು3 ಇ@ಾ,ೆಯ'9ನ ಬಂಧಾತJಕ ಯಮಗಳನು+ ಾR ೆ ತೂ<, ೆ..ಎ. (ನಡEೆ) ಯಮಗಳS 1966ರ ಯಮ 3 ಮತು3 4 ರ'9ನ ಬಂಧೆಗಳನು+ ಉಲ9ಂU ಸರಾ< ೌಕರ ೆ ಸಲ9ದ ದುವCತ7ೆಯ ಆHೋಪವನು+ ಎಸ:ರುG3ೕ<. " 7.1 We notice from the articles of charge that the charges do not relate to any dereliction of duty by the petitioner. The charge does not allege misuse of any official position by the petitioner either during the investigation or in the course of trial. The charge pertains purely to domestic issues, that too relating to the petitioner’s brother. The initial order of penalty is not proportionate to the alleged charge. In the absence of any established evidence, it cannot be held that the charge against the petitioner is grave and serious. 7.2 Though the appellate authority interfered with the order of penalty and modified the same, when a revision petition was filed in the backdrop of the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, the revisional authority committed an error in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 not exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested in it. The Tribunal proceeded to reject the application without a comprehensive evaluation of the factual position and the result of the criminal proceedings. The Tribunal confirmed the modified order of penalty on the ground that the enquiry officer had found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. The Tribunal has not considered the findings recorded by the Sessions Court. 7.3 No doubt, the degree of proof required in disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings is different. In criminal proceedings, the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings, proof based on preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Further, the penalty need not be set aside merely on account of acquittal in criminal proceedings. However, this principle cannot be applied uniformly. The nature of the offence alleged and the background in which the disciplinary or criminal proceedings are initiated require consideration on a case-to-case basis. 7.4 In the present case, there is no allegation of misuse or abuse of any official position by the petitioner. The charge in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 the criminal case as well as the articles of charge in the disciplinary proceedings relate to domestic issues between the petitioner’s brother and his brother’s wife. It is also specifically contended that the petitioner was residing separately from his brother. 8. In the light of the factual background and the findings recorded by the Sessions Court, we are of the view that the order of penalty imposed is not justifiable. The materials on record indicate that there is no evidence to substantiate the alleged charge or misconduct against the petitioner. The conclusion of the enquiry officer appears to be based on insufficient evidence. 9. The appellate authority, though modified the order of penalty, did not have the benefit of the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, wherein a comprehensive finding was recorded based on the evidence on record. However, the revisional authority had the benefit of the order of acquittal, which, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have prompted it to revisit the order in that regard. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13438-DB WP No. 9936 of 2021 10. In the light of the above, the following: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order of penalty dated 06.10.2010, the order passed in revision dated 03.03.2012, the endorsement dated 30.05.2017, and the order of the Tribunal dated 06.07.2020 are hereby set aside. (iii) Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. (iv) The consequential benefits if any, shall be computed/extended within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35