THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT

against him by one Sri. Vijaykumar Hanamappa to the Lokayukta Police alleging that respondent No.1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as a gratification for mutation of the complainant’s name in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was organised by the Lokayukta Police and the respondent No.1 was caught with bribe money of Rs. 2,500/- in his shirt pocket. A departmental enquiry was held by the respondent No.2 herein and an enquiry report was submitted on 24.10.2019. The petitioner No.1 based on the recommendation of the respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR No.2 order dated 21.10.2020 was passed, wherein respondent No. 1 was ordered with a penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 approached the KSAT seeking to quash the order dated 21.10.2020. The KSAT after considering the contentions and material available on record, allowed the application by setting aside the order dated 21.10.2020. Being aggrieved by the order of the KSAT, the petitioner-State has filed this petition.

#3. Sri. Girish Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State submits that the KSAT without considering the difference between the scope of criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry has proceeded to allow the application merely on the ground that respondent No.1 was acquitted in the criminal case i.e S.C.No.15/2012. It is further submitted that the standard of proof operating in a criminal case is that of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ whereas in case of a departmental enquiry, it is a ‘preponderance of probabilities’, and the same was not considered by the KSAT while allowing the application. It is also submitted that the acquittal of respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR No.1 is merely on a technical grounds and the same is not an honourable acquittal, hence, the same cannot be a basis to interfere with the order of penalty in a departmental enquiry. It is contended that P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the departmental enquiry, who have also been examined in the criminal proceedings supported the case against respondent No. 1, however, the evidence of P.W.3, who is P.W.2 before the criminal proceedings is declared as hostile and unreliable. Hence, the evidence on record in the departmental enquiry is required to be looked into independently. It is further contended that there is sufficient evidence against respondent No.1 in the departmental enquiry which has not been appreciated by the KSAT. It is also contended that the KSAT exceeded its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence and recorded incorrect finding which calls for interference in this petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

#1. Pravin Kumar v Union of India and others1

#2. State of Karnataka and others v Umesh2 [Ajit (emphasis supplied) impose penalty

#19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment [Shashi Bhusan Prasad v. CISF, 2008 SCC OnLine Ori 544 : 2008 Lab IC 3733] in detail and needs no interference by this Court. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR (v) In the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v C. Nagaraju and Another

#9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power 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 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]

#10. As the High Court set aside the order of dismissal on the basis of the judgments of this Court in M. Paul Anthony [M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] and G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] , it is necessary to examine whether the said judgments are applicable to the facts of this case. Simultaneous continuance of departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the same set of facts was the point considered by this Court in M. Paul Anthony case [M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] . This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR inquiry to stay departmental simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact. On the facts of the said case, it was found that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and the evidence before the criminal court and the departmental inquiry was the same. Further, in the said case the departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte. In such circumstances, this Court held that the ex parte departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to stand in view of the acquittal of the delinquent by the criminal court on the same set of facts and evidence. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the criminal trial against Respondent 1. He was acquitted by the criminal court on the ground that the prosecution could not produce any credible evidence to prove the charge. On the other hand, the complainant and the other witnesses appeared before the inquiry officer and deposed against Respondent 1. The evidence available in the departmental inquiry is completely different from that led by the prosecution in criminal trial.

#11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of in G.M. Tank [G.M. this Court Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was allowed. In the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the charge. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was upheld [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC OnLine Guj 487] by the High Court. In the appeal - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR filed by the delinquent officer, this Court was of the opinion that the departmental proceedings and criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts. The evidence before the criminal court and the departmental proceedings being exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the employee by a criminal court has to be given due weight by the disciplinary authority. On the basis that the evidence in both the criminal trial and departmental inquiry is the same, the order of dismissal of the appellant therein was set aside. As stated earlier, the facts of this case are entirely different. The acquittal of Respondent 1 was due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court. The order of dismissal was on the basis of a report of the inquiry officer before whom there was ample evidence against Respondent 1. (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRAVEEN KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA at para 25, 26 and 28, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and others v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey at Para 21 held the scope of the department enquiry vis-a-vis criminal proceedings and the scope of interference by the Constitutional Courts. (vii) In the case of Maharana Pratap v State of Bihar

#47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, is well- established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, the disciplinary upholding proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan” findings

#50. The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution “miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt” as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This discussion confirms that the appellant's acquittal was based not on mere technicalities. In Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that terms like “benefit of doubt” or “honourably acquitted” should not be treated as formalities. The Court's duty is to focus on the substance of the judgment, rather than the terminology used. (viii) Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175

#28. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR

#29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, “not proved” — fact the charge even stood “disproved” by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when “proved” nor “disproved” U.P. [Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] ). Singh v. State (see Vijayee is neither

#30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] . the situation that arose (ix) In the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat16 facts and on

#30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable law. departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of this case, In 16 (2006) 5 SCC 446 - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR In charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.

#31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee the proceedings during the pendency of - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. (x) In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh17 J. The effect of an acquittal 38. I the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and of from his the star witness resiling statements. Our precedents indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India [Southern Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 24 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 552] , this Court held : (SCC p. 40, para 37) “37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not into consideration. The been taken revisional authority did so. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge.” (emphasis supplied)

#39. In State v. S.Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that unless the accused has an “honourable acquittal” in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning 17 (2021) 12 SCC 569 - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR the decision hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an “honourable acquittal”. Noticing this, the Court observed : (SCC pp. 609-10, paras 24-26) “Honourable acquittal

#24. The meaning of before the expression “honourable acquittal” came up Court consideration in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what expression acquitted”. “honourably When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. is meant by honourable. The

#25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787] it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR In State honourable. Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by in Robert Stuart Lord Williams, J. Wauchope v. Emperor [Robert Stuart SCC Wauchope v. Emperor, OnLine Cal 369 : ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] (Raghava follows Assam v. Raghava case [State Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC)] , SLR p. 47, para 8) is as 1933 : ‘8. … The accepted that we “honourably expression acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra-judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government “honourably acquitted”.’ (Robert Stuart Stuart case [Robert Wauchope v. Emperor, SCC OnLine Cal 369 : ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] , ILR pp. 188-89) authorities 1933

#26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR required is not proceedings employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court disciplinary preponderance sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.” probabilities few of (emphasis supplied) (xi) In the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy & Another v Superintendent of Police and Another the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 20 to 22 reiterated law laid - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR down in the case of S. Samuthiram, Captain M.Paul Anthony and G.M.Tank e) The KSAT interfered with the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement mainly on three grounds. Firstly, the KSAT has recorded the finding with regard to the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry and ventured to re-appreciate the evidence which in our considered view is impermissible unless the finding of the departmental enquiry is without following the principles of natural justice, the finding of misconduct is without any evidence, the statutory rule governing the conduct of disciplinary enquiry has not been observed, the finding of the disciplinary authority is perverse and penalty imposed is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The KSAT without even looking into the oral and documentary evidence in its entirety came to an incorrect conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 in its proper perspective and further that the demand and acceptance is not proved. In our considered view, such a finding of the KSAT was uncalled for as it - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR would amount to the KSAT sitting as an Appellate Authority over the proceedings of departmental enquiry, which is impermissible. The KSAT has wrongfully recorded the finding that PW.3 has admitted that he was not present at the time of the alleged demand and acceptance of the money and further that he has not heard conversation with regard to the demand and acceptance of money. The said finding of the KSAT runs contrary to the evidence on record. It is the case of the employer that the complainant files a complaint with the respondent No.2 alleging that, to do the official favour, the employee has initially demanded Rs.4,000/- and later he scaled down to Rs.2,500/-. Based on such a written complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and which has been admitted by the complainant in his examination-in-chief, the PW.1 in his examination-in-chief during the enquiry clearly deposed what has been stated in the complaint at Ex.P.1 and further deposed that as per the plan, complainant-PW.1 and PW.3 entered the room and handed over Rs.2,500/- as demanded by the employee. There is clear evidence with regard to the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer with regard - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR to pre-trap procedure. PW.3, who is a pancha witness fully supported the case of the employer that he heard the conversation of PW.1 and the employee that as per the demand of the employee, PW.1 had brought Rs.2,500/- which he had handed over to the employee and he received the said amount, counted the amount with both hands and put it in his shirt pocket and immediately after the signal shown by PW.3, PW.2 and the Investigating Officer entered the room and conducted proceeding by drawing the Mahazar. f) The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 when compared with the complaint at Ex.P.1 and Mahazars drawn during pre- trap and post-trap clearly demonstrate that the employee has demanded illegal gratification from PW.1 to do the official favour, accepted the illegal gratification and that the Investigating Officer has conducted the trap procedure in accordance with law. There is sufficient evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the trap procedure conducted by the Investigating Officer is in accordance with law and the employer in order to prove the charges - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR levelled against the employee has led oral and documentary evidence in the departmental proceedings, which are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the employee are proved. The KSAT has made a feeble attempt to make a distinction with regard to the examination-in-chief of PW.1 and cross- examination of PW.1 by recording the finding that there is inconsistency. In our considered view, the Enquiry Officer has clearly recorded his finding in the Enquiry Report with regard to the minor inconsistencies by comparing the other evidence on record. We fully agree with the finding recorded in the departmental proceedings with regard to the appreciation of evidence on record. The KSAT has failed to keep in mind that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence on record when read in its entirety, it can be fairly said that the charges levelled against the employee has been proved by the employer by leading legally acceptable evidence. The perverse finding recorded by the KSAT with regard to the appreciation of evidence is required to be interfered in these proceedings. - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR g) It is worth to be noticed that PW.1 has not denied the complaint lodged by him at Ex.P.1, his signature and that the official work was pending with the employee. Further, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding that there is substantial gap between the examination-in-chief of PW.1 and his cross-examination. The Enquiry Officer has recorded further finding that in cross-examination, the complainant has made some attempt to protect the employee by stating that, it was DW.2, who had made the demand for illegal gratification. The evidence of PW.3, examination-in-chief of PW.1 and evidence of PW.4 is read together and compared with the documentary evidence on record and by which we can come to a definite conclusion that PW.1-complainant was won over by the employee during the departmental proceedings which has been rightly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and recorded the detailed finding. h) The employee has made an attempt to overcome the evidence of PW.3 by putting number of suggestions during the cross-examination, which has been referred to by the - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR Enquiry Officer at para 31 to 34 of the enquiry report. The evidence of PW.3 is consistent and nothing was elicited during the cross-examination. The Enquiry Officer has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a clear finding that charges levelled against the employee are proved and the said finding ought not to have been interfered by the KSAT without any justifiable reason. i) Secondly, the KSAT has recorded in its reasons that the reply of the employee submitted to the second show- cause-notice was not considered. We have perused the impugned order of penalty which clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the enquiry report, evidence on record, explanation of the employee and has come to a conclusion that the objections are not satisfactory and accepted the finding and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is trite law that the Disciplinary Authority is not expected to assign detailed reasons to each of the objections raised by the employee. The impugned order clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind and imposed the penalty by - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR overruling the objections, which does not call for any interference. j) Thirdly, the KSAT has interfered with the finding of the departmental enquiry and the order of penalty on the ground that the employee has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. In our considered view, the KSAT has erred in recording the said finding without considering the fact that the charges levelled against the employee in the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry are distinct. Furthermore, even the evidence in both the proceedings is different. The KSAT has failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and in the criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand, we have already recorded the finding with regard to the evidence recorded in the departmental proceedings that there is sufficient evidence to uphold the order of punishment. It is to be noticed that the charges in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR different and for the ready reference, they are extracted herein below: Charge in the Departmental Proceedings Charge in the Criminal Proceedings village namely District, working in Badami That, you Sri Shivanagowda s/o Govindappa Vasanada, the DGO, Village Belavalakoppa Accountant Circle Bagalkote Sri complainant Vijaykumar s/o of Belavalakoppa village had purchased 3 acres 17 guntas of land in sy.no.150/2 of Belavalakoppa registered sale deed dtd. 17-10- 2011 and after intimation was sent to you from the office of the Sub-Registrar and the Tahasildar and on 28-10-2010 you asked for bribe of Rs.4,000/- to take further action and on 02-11-2011 you received bribe of Rs.2,500/- from the complainant to show official favour failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the act of which was un-becoming of a Government Servant and thereby committed enumerated U/R 3(1(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) rules 1966. misconduct village, limits of accountant You the accused named above, being public servant working as village Belavalakoppa 2.11.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. in a room situated at Badami within lokayukta police station, obtained Bagalkot gratification of ₹2,500/- from the complainant Vijaykumar in the presence of CW.3 Venkoba as a reward for doing official act and thereby committed an offence punishable Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 and within the cognizance of this court. S.7 Lastly you the accused named above, on the aforesaid date. time and place, being a public servant, obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage of ₹2,500/- from the complainant thereby abused your position as a public thereby committed an offence under S.13(1)(d) S.13(2) Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this court. Vijaykumar punishable Prevention servant And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said charge. - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR k) The aforesaid charges make it clear that the burden is on the employer to prove the misconduct of the employee and in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By no stretch of imagination can the charges leveled against the employee in both the proceedings be termed as similar. In the departmental proceedings, the employer is required to prove the general misconduct of the employee, however, in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from the complainant as a reward for doing an official act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court Spl.C.No.15/2012 clearly indicates that the acquittal of the employee who was the accused is for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal is not the honorable acquittal. The enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra makes a clear - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR distinction with regard to the honorable acquittal and acquittal of the accused on the ground of ‘benefit of doubt’. In the case on hand, if the judgment of the Sessions Court is read in entirety, it clearly indicates that some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, which resulted in acquittal due to benefit of doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held an honorable acquittal is distinct from an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or due to technical reasons. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the employee that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is required to be taken note of, has no merit and accordingly, the same rejected. Considering the evidence on record we are of the considered view that the charges leveled against the employee are proved, the enquiry was conducted after providing sufficient opportunity to the employee. The KSAT ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded in departmental proceedings without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order of the KSAT is required to be set-aside. - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR l) We conclude by recording that the court or tribunal should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption. Corruption is a menace that not threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian. In the face of corruption, the courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.

#12. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Application No.12621/2020 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi is set-aside. - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB WP No. 100268 of 2024 HC-KAR (iii) The order dated 21.10.2020 bearing No.PÀAE 109 ©r¦ 2012 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, is upheld. (iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM, RH/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1