SRI S MANJUNATH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 EMAIL. [REDACTED] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/10/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5233/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED BEFORE THE HON’BLE KAT AND ETC. 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 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Application No.5233/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru1, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-A17), wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service and for a direction to take back the petitioner with consequential benefits, has been rejected by the Tribunal.

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022

The factual matrix leading to the present writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Village Accountant and was issued Articles of Charge dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure-A1), wherein the following charge was alleged against the petitioner:

2. That, you Sri S.Manjunath, the DGO, while working as Village Accountant of Belaghatta grama in Chitradurga Taluk and District, the complainant namely Razak Sab, S/o Khasim Sab of Belaghatta village had filed application on 22.09.2010 for enhanced pension of `1000/- to his elder brother Imam Khasim who was blind person and on 25.02.2011, you asked the complainant for bribe of `2,000/- and after request by the complainant, you reduced demanded bribe to `1,000/- and on 26.02.2011, took the said bribe of `1,000/- from the complainant to pay pension enhanced by the Government, failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the act of which was un-becoming of a Government Servant, and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966.

An enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry report dated 21.1.2020 (Annexure-A13) it was held that charge against the petitioner was proved. Vide recommendation dated

22.1.2020 (Annexure-A14), second respondent recommended imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, consequent to which, the first respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 2.3.2020 (Annexure-A15) to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply to the same vide - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 explanation dated 13.5.2020 (Annexure-A16). The first respondent, vide order dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-A17) imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Application No.5233/2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated

14.10.2022 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard the submissions of Sri Dhanush M, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.N.Mahadeswaran, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case and the said order being an honourable acquittal, in the enquiry also the petitioner ought to have been exonerated. He further contends that the charge alleged against the petitioner had not been adequately proved. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the writ petition and granting of the reliefs.

Per contra, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 justifies the order passed - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 by the Tribunal and submits that the said contention was urged before the Tribunal, wherein it was noticed that the charge against the petitioner had been adequately proved in the enquiry and that the criminal case and departmental enquiry operate on different fields with different objectives and hence, the order of the Tribunal ought not to be interfered with.

The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the writ petition papers have been perused. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

It is forthcoming that the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and vide judgment dated 7.10.2015, passed in Special Case (PCA) No.14/2011, the petitioner has been acquitted of the said offences.

In the enquiry, it is forthcoming that 4 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner who was the DGO in the enquiry, was examined - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 as DW.1 as well as another witness has been examined as DW.2.

It is noticed that the charge against the petitioner is that the complainant (PW.1) filed application on 22.9.2010 for enhanced pension of `1,000/- to his elder brother, who was a blind person and the said enhancement having been granted by the government, the petitioner demanded a bribe of `2,000/-, which was reduced to `1,000/- for payment of the said enhanced pension. It is forthcoming that DW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that he attended the file pertaining to the elder brother of PW.1. He also admitted that the amount of `1,000/- was seized from him and the shirt worn by him was also seized.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had asked for a loan of `1,000/- and in the circumstances, the said sum of `1,000/- was paid by PW.1 to the petitioner. However, the enquiry officer after appreciation of the material on record has recorded a finding that the said explanation by the petitioner is only an after thought to escape the charges framed against him. The petitioner, in the enquiry also put forth a contention that he had been acquitted in the criminal case. However, the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 enquiry officer while considering the said contention has noticed that in the criminal case the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in the departmental enquiry the evidence has to be scrutinized on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and hence, rejected the said contention.

As noticed above, in terms of the recommendation of the second respondent, the first respondent has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal, while considering the application filed by the petitioner, has held that the enquiry officer has followed the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was treated fairly and properly by the enquiry officer. While considering the contention of the petitioner that he has been acquitted in the criminal case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the criminal case and departmental enquiry proceedings are different and operate in different fields with different objectives as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the Tribunal noticing that the punishment imposed was one of compulsory retirement, held that the said penalty is reasonable, proper and fair. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022

It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that the charge against the petitioner has been adequately proved in the enquiry. Further, it is relevant to note that on the proved charge of misconduct the maximum penalty of dismissal from service was required to be imposed. However, the first respondent has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which itself is a lenient one.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan2.

The said judgment in the case of Ram Lal2 will not aid the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the said case the charge was that the delinquent therein had altered his date of birth in the marks sheet issued by the Government Secondary School. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, noticing that in the criminal proceedings the appellate Court while acquitting the delinquent had recorded that in the original marks sheet (Ex.P3) the date of birth was correctly shown, held that in view of the findings recorded in the criminal case, the findings 2 (2024) 1 SCC 175 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 recorded in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. However, in the present case, in the enquiry, it was noticed that the petitioner had admitted that he worked on the file of the elder brother of PW.1 and the receipt of money was also admitted.

In this context, it is relevant to notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umesh3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “15. The enquiry report concluded in this backdrop that the misconduct was established on the basis of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3. Referring to the evidence of the complainant, the enquiry officer held that if in truth the respondent had not demanded a bribe and PW 1 was returning a loan amount to the respondent as stated by DW 1, there was no necessity for the complainant to visit the office of the Lokayukta and to sign a complaint. The complainant was also present for the pre-trap and trap mahazar and appended his signatures. The enquiry report finds that there was no reason for PW 2 and PW 3 to depose falsely. No material inconsistencies were elicited during the cross- examination by the respondent. Consequently, the defence that the amount which was recovered from the respondent represented a loan was disbelieved and the misconduct was held to be proved.

In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of 3 (2022) 6 SCC 563 - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. [State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424 and CISF v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 310]” (emphasis supplied)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. V. C.Nagaraju4 , has held as follows: from exercising

9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. [Ajit the power 4 (2019) 10 SCC 367 - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:34960-DB WP No. 24833 of 2022 Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020] In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. [State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455]

(emphasis supplied)