Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 124 (KAR)

Banappa N v. State Of Karnataka, Rept

2020-01-14

H.P.SANDESH, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2020
JUDGMENT H P Sandesh, J. - Heard the Petitioner's Counsel and also learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal', for short] passed in Application No.2890/2017 dated 10.05.2018 and also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 24.05.2017 and so also quashing of enquiry report dated 16.03.2016 and such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Balichakra, Yadagir District, and the proceedings was initiated against him for the charges that he has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,000/- on 31.05.2017 from the complainant Smt. Shakuntala who was working as 'Junior Health Assistant' Primary Health Sub-Centre, Ramasamudra Taluk, Yadagir District for doing official favour i.e., sending salary cheque of the said complainant to the concerned Bank. Hence, the charge is that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of the Government Servant and he is guilty of misconduct under Rule 3[1] of the Karnataka Civil Services [Conduct] Rules, 1966. 4. A criminal case is also registered against the petitioner and the same has ended in acquittal in Special Case No.6/2010 vide Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2011. In the Departmental enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and thereafter recommendation was made and in pursuance of the said recommendation, an order was passed against the petitioner for compulsory retirement in terms of Annexure-A28. The same has been questioned before the Tribunal by filing Application No.2890/2017. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 5. The main ground urged in this writ petition is that the Tribunal did not consider the material on record and erroneously proceeded to confirm the order of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the District & Sessions Judge, Yadagir, in Special Case acquitted the petitioner. 5. The main ground urged in this writ petition is that the Tribunal did not consider the material on record and erroneously proceeded to confirm the order of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the District & Sessions Judge, Yadagir, in Special Case acquitted the petitioner. It is also contended that the complainant did not support the case of the Department in the criminal proceedings and hence proceedings was initiated against the complainant under section 193 of Indian Penal Code; that the complainant has given false evidence before the Court and hence Criminal Case No.78/2012 initiated against the complainant. Due to such pressure on the complainant, the complainant has supported the case of the Department against the petitioner in the Departmental proceedings. The said aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal and hence it requires interference by this Court. 6. The petitioner's Counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings. It is also contended that the criminal proceedings has been initiated against the complainant for not supporting the case in the criminal proceedings and due to the said pressure, the complainant gave evidence against the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 would contend that in similar set of facts and circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of 'KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BYMANAGING DIRECTOR [ADMN. AND HR] v. SRI. C. NAGARAJU & ANOTHER' decided in Civil Appeal No.7279/2019 in paragraph-13 of the Judgment held that, it is settled law that acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude the Departmental Enquiry against delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court, if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. 8. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. 8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 also relied upon Judgment in the case of ' DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER v. S. SAMUTHIRAM, 2013 1 SCC 598 and also brought to our notice paragraphs 23 and 26 of the Judgment. In this Judgment also, the Apex Court has held that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department and further observed that if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the 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 is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. 9. Having considered both submissions of the petitioner's Counsel and also learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, this Court has to examine whether the Tribunal has committed an error in passing an order in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal, while considering the matter in detail, discussed with regard to the case of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner in paragraph-5 of the Judgment and also discussed with regard to doctrine of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' has no application in case of departmental enquiry. It is also observed that when the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence on the proof of the charge. 10. It is also observed that when the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence on the proof of the charge. 10. The Tribunal also discussed with regard to acquittal of the petitioner in criminal proceedings and further observed that as seen from the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and hence he was acquitted. 11. On perusal of the material available on record, enquiry report which is marked as Annexure- A23, it is clear that the complainant as well as shadow witness and also Investigating Officer have supported with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount and the same was recovered. There is no material before the Court to show that the petitioner has rebutted the same. Once the demand and acceptance is proved, the petitioner has to rebut the same. No such effort is made by the petitioner. It is also noted that defence of the petitioner that he was forcibly instructed to put his hand to the smeared money is also not supported by any material. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was also not able to convince this Court that immediately, the petitioner has given reply that he was forced to touch the amount. In the absence of material, the contention of the petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted. No doubt, the criminal proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner for giving false evidence in the criminal proceedings and the same is initiated for giving false evidence. Mere registration of case itself is not a ground to discharge the petitioner for misconduct and the Enquiry Officer appreciated not only the evidence of the complainant but also relied upon the evidence of the shadow witness as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Hence, the contention of the petitioner counsel that the complainant gave evidence due to pressure cannot be accepted. 12. Having considered the material on record and also grounds urged in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit to interfere with the order impugned. The Tribunal while considering the available material in detail, dealt with regard to the demand and acceptance of money by the petitioner. 12. Having considered the material on record and also grounds urged in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit to interfere with the order impugned. The Tribunal while considering the available material in detail, dealt with regard to the demand and acceptance of money by the petitioner. It is settled law that in a criminal case, prosecution is bound to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But, in the case of departmental enquiry, preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In view of the discussion made above, writ petition is dismissed.