ORDER : 1. The applicant in Application No. 2511/2016 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 6.4.2018 in dismissing his application and consequently, confirming the order of dismissal of applicant from service by the competent authority- respondent No. 1, namely Principal Secretary, Department of Finance (Administration and Advances) dated 1.3.2016 vide Annexure-A15 before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: The petitioner herein was working as Accountant in Sub Treasury. While he was working in Bramhavara, Udupi Taluk, disciplinary inquiry proceedings was initiated against him in failing to maintain integrity and devotion towards duty. The said proceedings has resulted in an order being passed to discharge him from service. It is the said order of his discharge from service dated 1.3.2016 passed by the first respondent herein was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No. 2511/2016, wherein the same was contested by first respondent-State as well as second respondent-Lokayuktha represented by its Registrar. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was trapped while accepting bribe of Rs. 16,000/- to discharge his official duty. The material on record would indicate that he was trapped while demanding and receiving the bribe amount and subsequently, when he was subjected to phenolphthalein test, the solution with which his hands were washed turned into pink colour in confirming acceptance of bribe which was paid to him as provided by the trap authorities. It is in this background, charges were framed and department inquiry proceedings were initiated. Simultaneously, it is seen that criminal prosecution was also launched. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the criminal prosecution which was launched against the petitioner herein in S.C. No. 19/2012 on the file of Principal Sessions/ Special Judge, Udupi District, resulted in his acquittal. In the meanwhile, the departmental inquiry which was initiated against him was concluded in holding the petitioner herein is guilty of charges leveled against him i.e. in demanding and accepting bring for discharging official duty and the said finding is based on the inquiry report dated 18.9.2015 vide Annexure-A11 before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the departmental inquiry which was initiated against him was concluded in holding the petitioner herein is guilty of charges leveled against him i.e. in demanding and accepting bring for discharging official duty and the said finding is based on the inquiry report dated 18.9.2015 vide Annexure-A11 before the Tribunal. It is the said finding when placed before the disciplinary authority resulted in an order being passed in ordering for his discharge from service which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No. 2511/2016. In the said proceedings, the Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application relying upon various judgments that were placed before it by the contesting respondents, which are, in the matter of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 4217 and in the matter of Mehiboobsab vs. Upalokayukta and Others, ILR 2002 Kar. 2535. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant before the Tribunal has come up in this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as contesting respondent - State and Karnataka Lokayuktha. 6. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner would try to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 and tried to impress upon this Court that under similar circumstances the Apex Court, having accepted the ruling of the Criminal Prosecution being held in favour of the accused in holding him not guilty of the offence, has ordered for his reinstatement with back wages and similar benefit should be extended to petitioner herein also. 7. However, at this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as Karnataka Lokayuktha would bring to the notice of this Court the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764 , where a Full Bench of the Apex Court under similar circumstances has held as under: “11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The 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 offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. 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. 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. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability.” Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. As far as the status of the appellant is concerned, it must be stated that Mr. Rao, Senior Advocate fairly conceded at the hearing of the appeal and the writ petition that the appellant is not governed by Article 311 of the Constitution since he cannot be said to be “civil servant.” In this connection, it will be profitable to refer to a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rao, Senior Advocate fairly conceded at the hearing of the appeal and the writ petition that the appellant is not governed by Article 311 of the Constitution since he cannot be said to be “civil servant.” In this connection, it will be profitable to refer to a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. S.L. Agarwal vs. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Limited, (1970) 3 SCR 363 : (1970) 1 SCC 177 . In that case, A was appointed as Assistant Surgeon by the Board of Directors of the Corporation for one year. After completion of the probation period, he was employed on contract basis and his services were terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract. He filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that his services were wrongly terminated which was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The Corporation contended that Article 311 was not applicable to him as he was employed by the Corporation and he neither belonged to Civil Service of the Union nor held a civil post under the Union.” 8. They would further submit that the aforesaid decision is followed subsequently in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarath and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 and also in another unreported matter arising out of S.N. Murkloti S/o Late Narayana vs. The Commandant, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Another in W.P. No. 104315/2018, disposed of on 26.9.2019, which would clearly indicate that the finding of the criminal proceedings has no bearing on the decision that would be taken in a department inquiry proceedings initiated against the alleged misconduct of the employee with reference to acceptance of bribe for discharge of official work. 9. In this background, by accepting the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Kumar Nag, which is followed in other judgments, as stated supra, this Court would hold that the order passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No. 2511/2016, dated 6.4.2018, does not call for interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the delinquent employee is hereby dismissed.