Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 141 (KAR)

Ramakrishnaiah v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-09

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2016
ORDER : The Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal'), dated 24-6-2014 passed in Application No. 3553 of 2012 is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The records reveal that the petitioner herein was working as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology at Karwar during the year 2007. One Mr. R.B. Chandawar was working in the said office as Manual Assistant. Since certain amount of bribe was demanded by R.B. Chandawar from Mr. R.V. Shanbog for renewal of licence, the said R.V. Shanbog lodged a complaint on 23-7-2007 before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Karwar, with an allegation that the R.B. Chandavar was demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- for issuing renewed licence of R.V. Shanbag, who is a repairer of weights and measures. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 2 of 2007 came to be registered by the Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police, Karwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act') against Mr. R.V. Chandawar. A trap was laid. The said R.V. Chandavar was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- from Sri R.V. Shanbog. During the course of investigation by Lokayukta Police, it is found that in the said case, the Lokayukta Police had subsequently included the petitioner also as an accused, who was working as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Karwar, inasmuch as the material prima facie disclosed that the petitioner also was a party for getting and sharing bribe. The sanction of the Government was sought for prosecuting the petitioner herein. However, the request of the Lokayukta Police to prosecute the petitioner is rejected by the 2nd respondent-Controller, Department of Legal Metrology vide order dated 5-6-2009. In the meanwhile, the Lokayukta Police conducted enquiry and submitted the report to the State Government under Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. 3. On the recommendation made by the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 17-12-2012 directing initiation of the Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner and entrusted the same to the Upa-Lokayukta. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the KAT in Application No. 3553 of 2012. 4. The Division Bench of the Tribunal was consisting of the Judicial Member as well as the Administrative Member. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the KAT in Application No. 3553 of 2012. 4. The Division Bench of the Tribunal was consisting of the Judicial Member as well as the Administrative Member. The Judicial Member having held in favour of the petitioner, concluded that the State Government has not applied its mind while directing the Upa-Lokayukta to initiate Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner, whereas the Administrative Member differed with the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Judicial Member and has held that it is a fit case to continue with the Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner. Since there is divergence of opinion expressed by two Members of the Tribunal, papers were placed before the Chairman of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru. After hearing, the Chairman has opined against the petitioner and concurred with the conclusion reached by the Administrative Member. Consequently, the majority of the Full Bench held that it is a fit case to initiate Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner herein. In other words, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the State Government dated 17-5-2012 directing initiation of the Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner and entrusting the same to Upa-Lokayukta. 5. Mr. S.B. Makkannappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner drawing our attention of the Court to the materials on record submits that, the State Government while passing the order dated 17-5-2012 has not at all applied its mind, but has merely narrated the report of the Upa-Lokayukta and has abruptly come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to initiate the Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner. Secondly, he submits that though the order passed by the State Government is an Administrative order, the same should contain reasons, inasmuch as the petitioner has got right to know as to on what basis he is being proceeded with. Lastly, the learned Counsel submits that, since the 2nd respondent being the Disciplinary Authority has concluded that it is not a fit case to prosecute the petitioner, it is not open for the State Government to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner. 6. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Merely because the sanction to prosecute the petitioner is refused by the Disciplinary Authority, the State Government cannot shut its eyes without conducting the Disciplinary Enquiry. 6. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Merely because the sanction to prosecute the petitioner is refused by the Disciplinary Authority, the State Government cannot shut its eyes without conducting the Disciplinary Enquiry. The scope of Disciplinary Enquiry is totally different from the scope of prosecution. In criminal cases, the matter will be decided based on the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in Disciplinary Enquiry, the matter needs to be decided based on preponderance of probabilities. 7. We have gone through the report of the Lokayukta as well as the order of the Karnataka State Government dated 17-5-2012 directing initiation of Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner. It is clear from the impugned order itself that sufficient material is gathered against the petitioner. Though he has not directly accepted the amount of bribe, the petitioner was also instrumental and colluded with the principal offender namely R.B. Chandawar for collecting bribe amount indirectly. The records reveal that immediately after payment of the bribe to R.B. Chandavar by Mr. R.V. Shanbog, whose licence was to be renewed, Mr. R.V. Shanbhog went to the chambers of the petitioner and told the petitioner that amount of Rs. 3,000/- is paid to Mr. Chandawar and the petitioner nodded his head and said (VERNACULAR MATTER) (O.K.), which means the petitioner is also a party to the acceptance of illegal gratification by Mr. Chandawar. In other words, the petitioner has ratified the action of the main offender. Since the material on record is prima facie sufficient, it is a fit case to conduct Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the State Government has applied its mind before coming to the conclusion and it based its conclusion after going through the records. Hence, no interference is called for to the report of the Lokayukta. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.