Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 586 (KAR)

R. Krishnappa S/o Ramanna v. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue

2020-02-28

H.P.SANDESH, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2020
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed seeking the relief of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 2.7.2018 passed in Application No. 8648/2015, on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) and to grant such other order or direction as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner entered into service as Village Accountant in the Department of Revenue in the year 1972. He was promoted as Revenue Inspector in the year 2000 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as a Revenue Inspector at Munganahalli Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District, on the complaint of one Sri Y.B. Venkataramanappa, a trap was conducted on 29.4.2006, by the Lokayuktha police. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed in P.S. No. 6/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was numbered as PCACC No. 7/2006 on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Kolar. The same was transferred to Chikkaballapur Sessions Court consequent to the formation of the new District and was re-numbered as PCACC No. 1/2007. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted. 4. After the trap was conducted against the petitioner on 29.4.2006, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007. The Upalokayuktha sent the 12(3) report to the respondent on 22.6.2007. After the retirement of the petitioner, the respondent Government invoking Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules’ for short) issued an order on 23.7.2007, entrusting the matter to the Upalokayuktha for conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Upalokayuktha passed an order on 10.8.2007, nominating the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-5 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha as the Enquiry Officer to frame the charges against the petitioner and to conduct the enquiry against him. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner is that he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. The Upalokayuktha passed an order on 10.8.2007, nominating the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-5 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha as the Enquiry Officer to frame the charges against the petitioner and to conduct the enquiry against him. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner is that he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- on 29.4.2006, from the complainant when he had approached the petitioner with a request for inserting his name and the name of his father in respect of Survey No. 142/1 situated at Yenumalapadi and for spot inspection. Thereby, he failed to maintain absolute integrity. The charge leveled against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1/2007 is identical to the charge framed in the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry against the petitioner was continued and the report was submitted that the charge has been proved. Thereafter, the Upalokayuktha sent a recommendation to the Government on 3.2.2015 recommending penalty of reduction of 30% of pension permanently under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Rules. Thereafter, the respondent issued second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent passed an order on 18.8.2015 imposing the penalty of withholding 30% of pension of the petitioner. 5. The same was questioned before the Tribunal in Application No. 8648/2015 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2018. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 6. The grounds urged in the petition is that the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order mainly presuming that the charge against the petitioner is proved and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact of delay in initiation and completion of the departmental enquiry. In order to prove the charge, it is very much necessary to prove both ingredient of demand and acceptance. The Tribunal failed to consider that the complainant himself turned hostile and never stated anything about the demand of Rs. 1,000/-. 7. The other ground urged before this Court is that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007. The Government entrusted the matter to Upalokayuktha only on 23.7.2007, i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. 1,000/-. 7. The other ground urged before this Court is that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007. The Government entrusted the matter to Upalokayuktha only on 23.7.2007, i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Rules is impermissible in law. The very initiation of departmental enquiry is void ab initio. Even though the article of charges was framed on 13.9.2007, no departmental enquiry was conducted till 2012 and enquiry report was submitted on 29.1.2015. Hence, the departmental enquiry is barred by limitation and contrary to Rule 214 (2)(b) of the Rules. There is an inordinate delay and laches in completing the departmental enquiry. It is also contended that initiation of departmental enquiry is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, imposing the penalty of reduction of 30% of pension is illegal and arbitrary. The Government has passed a cryptic order imposing penalty by withholding 30% of pension and the enquiry report would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the petitioner on merits and categorically held that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charge leveled against the petitioner. Inspite the petitioner was acquitted in a judicial pronouncement, the respondent in the absence of iota of evidence, erroneously accepted the enquiry report and imposed the penalty of deduction of 30% of pension of the petitioner. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal did not consider all these grounds, which are urged before the Tribunal and mechanically passed the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the ground urged before the Tribunal. The learned counsel also contended that the respondent has invoked Rule 14A of the Rules against the petitioner since the petitioner had already been retired from service and when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, he was not in service. Hence, the very initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner invoking Rule 14A of the Rules is void ab initio. 10. The learned counsel referring to Rule 2(d) of the Rules with regard to the definition of ‘Government servant’ would contend that as on the date of initiation of the proceedings, the petitioner was not a Government servant. Hence, the very initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner invoking Rule 14A of the Rules is void ab initio. 10. The learned counsel referring to Rule 2(d) of the Rules with regard to the definition of ‘Government servant’ would contend that as on the date of initiation of the proceedings, the petitioner was not a Government servant. “Government Servant” means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a Civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka. When such being the case, the very invoking of the provisions of Rule 14A of the Rules is bad in law. 11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 . Referring this judgment, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the judgment and would contend that there is no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 260 . 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 260 . Referring this judgment, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 8 of the judgment wherein it is held that, once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.L. Gulati vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 408 . Referring this judgment, the learned counsel brought to our notice paragraph No. 15 of the judgment wherein it is held that, it is not a matter of dispute that when the punishment was inflicted upon the appellant, the appellant had already retired from service having superannuated. In paragraph No. 18 of the judgment, the Apex Court made an observation with regard to the negligence that the appellant may have been negligent in the discharge of his duties, but it is not possible to conclude that the appellant was guilty of “grave misconduct.” 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and Others vs. Shri V.H. Agarkhed and Another, ILR 2017 Kar 3473. Referring this judgment, the learned counsel would contend that the Division Bench of this Court held that no judicial proceeding if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of any cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. As per Rule 214(6)(b)(ii) of KCSR, judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of civil proceeding on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. As per Rule 214(6)(b)(ii) of KCSR, judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of civil proceeding on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. In the instant case, the plaint was filed after lapse of nine years one month of retirement of the defendant and after lapse of twelve years from when the event took place. It is clear from the provisions of Rule 214 of KCSR that no judicial proceedings can be initiated after four years of retirement of a Government servant. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the case on hand also though the departmental enquiry proceedings was initiated at the beginning, the same was completed after four years. Hence, this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 15. The learned counsel referring to Rule 2(d) of the Rules would contend that the same does not include the retired employee and hence the respondent ought not to have invoked Rule 14A of the Rules. He further contended that admittedly the petitioner had retired from service and pensionary benefit was given to him. The respondent has not proved the fact of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and there was no material before the Court even on merits since the complainant himself has turned hostile. When such being the case, on merits also there is no case. The Tribunal failed to consider the grounds urged before the Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner had retired on 30.6.2007. It is also not in dispute that the trap was conducted when he was in service and criminal proceedings was also initiated against him. Though he was acquitted in the criminal case, the Department does not preclude from initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The process of departmental enquiry had started when the petitioner was in service itself. There is no doubt that the respondent had invoked Rule 14A of the Rules. That does not mean that the respondent is not having any authority to entrust the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 17. The process of departmental enquiry had started when the petitioner was in service itself. There is no doubt that the respondent had invoked Rule 14A of the Rules. That does not mean that the respondent is not having any authority to entrust the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Mani vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 278 . The learned counsel brought to our notice paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment. In paragraph No. 9, it is held that it is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law. 18. The learned counsel in order to substantiate the contention of initiating the proceedings against the petitioner referring the provisions under Rule 14A of the Rules brought to our notice, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. M. Basappa Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2017 (4) KCCR 2830 . He relied upon paragraph Nos.11.1, 12 and 13 of the judgment. In paragraph No. 19 of the judgment, it is held that Rule 214(2)(b)(iii) empowers the Disciplinary Authority or the Government to conduct enquiry through such authority and in such place as the Government may direct, in accordance with the procedure applicable. This clearly indicates that the Government can conduct enquiry through any other authority, but the other authority should follow the procedure applicable to departmental inquiries. Therefore, it goes without saying that Rules 11 and 14A of the CCA Rules are virtually mutatis mutandis applicable for the purpose of conducting Departmental inquiry. 19. Further, in paragraph No. 27 it is observed that at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that all the powers of the Disciplinary Authority are fully vested with the Enquiring Authority under Rule 14A(2)(c) of the said Rules for the purposes of enquiry. It is virtually the special procedure to be adopted by the Lokayuktha with reference to the delinquent employee. It is virtually the special procedure to be adopted by the Lokayuktha with reference to the delinquent employee. In view of the same, we do not find any strong reason to quash the disciplinary enquiry. 20. In this judgment also the appellant who questioned the initiation of departmental enquiry was also a retired Government servant. The Division Bench, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment discussed with regard to the definition under Rule 2(d) of the Rules and also considered the provisions under Rule 214 and so also Rule 14A of the Rules. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that though the departmental enquiry is referred under Rule 14A of the Rules, the punishment is provided invoking Rule 214 of the Rules and contend that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. and Another vs. P.K. Khanna, AIR 2005 SC 3742 and contended that the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and need not restate the reasons for its findings. He also brought to our notice paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment and contended that it does not require the Disciplinary Authority to record separate reasons from those given by the Enquiry Officer. The concurrence of the Disciplinary Authority with the reasoning and conclusion of the Enquiry Officer means that the Disciplinary Authority has adopted the conclusion and the basis of the conclusion as its own. Hence, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to restate the reasoning. 22. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. K. Rajappa Menon, AIR 1970 SC 748 and contended that there is no obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to write the order like judicial Tribunal. The learned counsel also brought to our notice paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment and would contend that Rule 1713 of the Railway Servants Conduct of Disciplinary Rules, does not lay down any particular form or manner in which the Disciplinary Authority should record its findings on each charge. The learned counsel also brought to our notice paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment and would contend that Rule 1713 of the Railway Servants Conduct of Disciplinary Rules, does not lay down any particular form or manner in which the Disciplinary Authority should record its findings on each charge. It is not obligatory on the Disciplinary Authority to discuss the evidence and the facts and circumstances established at the departmental enquiry in detail and write as if it were an order or a judgment of a judicial Tribunal. 23. Having referred the above judgments, the counsel for the respondent would contend that the Tribunal has taken note of the charge leveled against the petitioner and in the order it has rightly observed that the Enquiry Officer has assessed the entire evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has received the money to do an official favour and observing the same passed an order that it does not require interference of the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the Tribunal did not consider the material on record. 24. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has to refer the Rules which have been attributed before this Court. Hence, we would like to refer Rule 2(d) of the Rules and it requires anxious consideration to decide the issue involved between the parties. Rule 2(d) of the Rules reads as under: “2(d) ‘Government Servant’ means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka.” 25. On perusal of Rule 2(d) of the Rules, it is crystal clear that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated and proceeded against a retired Government servants under the said Rules, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as in this Rules, the present tense is used in so far as Government servants are concerned. This is in respect of the persons who are in Government service. 26. We would also like to refer to the provisions under Rule 214 of the Rules to know as to whether the Rule is applicable or not to the facts of this case. It is important to note that the legislators in their wisdom have introduced Rule 214 to KCS (CCA) Rules, by way of substitution by notification in No. FD-36 SRS-90 dated 10.10.1990 with effect from 18.10.1990. 27. Rules 214(2)(b), 214(6)(a) and 214(6)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules are the relevant provisions which are necessary so far as this case is concerned which deals with the departmental proceedings against a retired Government servant and for withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence by the retired Government servant. For the purpose of meaningful understanding and discussion, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the said Rules i.e. 214(1)(a) and (b), 214(2)(b) as under: “214(1)(a). Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence - The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. (b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension - The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a foreign employer under whom the Government servant has worked on deputation or otherwise. If in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement: 2(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” 28. Having considered Rule 214 of the Rules, there is no dispute in so far as it relates to initiation of proceedings against the retired Government employee. Rule 214 of the Rules empowers the Disciplinary Authority or the Government to conduct the enquiry by itself or through such authority as it deems fit and proper and direct such authority to conduct the enquiry. Therefore, looking at the said Rule, it is crystal clear that, in order to cover the deficiency in Rule 11 of the said Rules and to take action against the wrongful acts of the persons, who mis-conducted themselves and caused loss to the State exchequer, Rule 214 of the Rules has been introduced in the year 1990. Therefore, it cannot be said that only Rule 11 is applicable to his particular case in as much as Rule 214(2)(a) and (b), specifically deals with the retired Government servant. 29. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even if Rule 214(2)(b) states that the Government can take action against the retired employees, and it specifically imposes responsibility on the Government to deal with the retired Government servant, it cannot delegate its power to any other person or authority. Further, he submitted that, even if the Government refers the matter to any other person or authority invoking the provision under Section 214(2)(b)(iii), in turn, it should follow Rule 11(1) to (5) and thereafter only it can refer the matter to any other authority; that the authority to which the departmental enquiry was transferred has no jurisdiction to frame charges and then proceed with the matter; that it is the fundamental duty of the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges and receive the statement of objections from the delinquent employee and thereafter if it is satisfied, an enquiry has to be proceeded with, only then the State Government can refer the matter to the other authority. It is further argued that, in this particular case, the Disciplinary Authority has not framed the charges or supplied the articles of charges to the delinquent employee and not taken the written statement before referring the matter to Lokayuktha for enquiry. Therefore, the entire procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently by inquiry officer is vitiated by serious incurable procedural defect and it vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, on that ground also, the order passed by the Government has to be set aside. 30. Section 214(2)(b)(iii) empowers the Disciplinary Authority or the Government, to conduct enquiry through such authority and in such place as the Government may direct, in accordance with the procedure applicable. This clearly indicates that the Government can conduct enquiry through any other authority, but the other authority should follow the procedure applicable to departmental inquiries. Therefore, it goes without saying that Rule 11 and 14A of the Rules are virtually mutatis mutandis applicable for the purpose of conducting departmental enquiry. 31. Before adverting to Rule 11 of the Rules, it is just and necessary to bear in mind Rule 14A of the Rules, which explains the procedure for enquiry when the matter is referred to Lokayuktha. It is not in dispute that the matter was referred to Lokayuktha by the Government after receiving the investigation report from the Lokayuktha. Hence, we would like to refer to Rule 14A of the Rules: “14A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta: (1) The provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 to 11A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government Servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on a reference from Government. xxx xxx xxx 2(c) The Lokayukta, the Upalokayukta or the Officer authorised under clause (b) to conduct an inquiry shall conduct it in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this rule and for that purpose shall have the powers of the Disciplinary Authority referred to in the said Rule.” 32. This particular provision discloses that, where the cases entrusted to Lokayuktha, the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) has to be applied not withstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11A and 13 of the Rules for the purpose of proceeding against the Government servant whose alleged misconduct has been investigated by the Lokayuktha. This provision has to be read conjointly with Rule 214 of CCA Rules, which says that the procedure as contemplated to hold disciplinary enquiry against the Government servant has to be adopted. Sub Rule (2)(c) of Rule 14A contemplates that Lokayuktha, Upa Lokayuktha or the Officer authorized under clause (b) to conduct enquiry shall conduct it in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. Therefore, it goes without saying by combined reading of the Rule 14A(1) and 14A(2) of the CCA Rules, that the Lokayuktha can entrust matter to any of its officers to conduct the inquiry, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11A and 13, but in strict compliance with Rule 11 which are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules. Specifically it empowers Lokayuktha to conduct enquiry as if it is a Disciplinary Authority. 33. Having considered the relevant Rules and the factual aspects of this case, the petitioner did not dispute the very fact that he was trapped on 29.4.2006. The charge leveled against the petitioner was that he demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to insert the name of the petitioner and his father in the revenue records and when he accepted the money, he was trapped. It is also important to note that the charge sheet was filed against him on 3.10.2006 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and no doubt he retired from service on 30.6.2007. It is pertinent to note that based on the report of the Lokayuktha, the Government has passed Order No. Sam.Kam.E.36 BDP 2007, Bengaluru dated 23.7.2007 vide Annexure-D under Rule 14A of the Rules directing the Lokayuktha to enquire the matter. It is also important to note that in Annexure-D, reference is made to the letter No. Compt/Upaloka/BD/85/2007/ARLO-1 dated 8.6.2007 and 22.6.2007, that the proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner while he was in service. 34. It is also important to note that in Annexure-D, reference is made to the letter No. Compt/Upaloka/BD/85/2007/ARLO-1 dated 8.6.2007 and 22.6.2007, that the proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner while he was in service. 34. Having considered Annexure-D, it is clear that when the petitioner was in service itself, the steps were taken to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner based on the letters referred above. It is also pertinent to note that vide Government Order dated 23.7.2007 invoking Rule 14A of the Rules, departmental enquiry has been ordered. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not a Government servant as on the date of 23.7.2007 and hence Rule 14A ought not to have been invoked against the petitioner since he had already retired from service. The said contention cannot be accepted since this Court earlier discussed with regard to Rule 14A and also Rules 214 of the Rules and the same permits the Government to entrust the departmental enquiry through such authority even after the retirement when the criminal misconduct was alleged against the petitioner. 35. It is not in dispute that the Government has invoked Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1957 and vide Annexure-E. The Lokayuktha in pursuance of the Government Order dated 23.7.2007, appointed the Additional Registrar of Enquiries (5), Karnataka Lokayuktha as Enquiry Officer to frame charges and to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the Enquiry Officer has examined the complainant as PW-1 and Annexure-F is produced along with the writ petition. No doubt in the chief evidence with regard to the payment of amount is concerned, he categorically says that the petitioner did not demand the amount but the people told him to give a complaint to Lokayuktha police and accordingly he gave the complaint. He also says that he went along with another person to the office of the petitioner and he gave the money by keeping the amount on his table and immediately police came to the office of the petitioner. PW-1 was treated as hostile. He was subjected to cross-examination. 36. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P.2. He categorically admits that on the date of the complaint itself, the police have called Ramesh and Lokesh as panch witnesses. PW-1 was treated as hostile. He was subjected to cross-examination. 36. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P.2. He categorically admits that on the date of the complaint itself, the police have called Ramesh and Lokesh as panch witnesses. He categorically admits that he gave the money of Rs. 1,000/- ten notes of denomination of Rs.100/-. He also categorically admits that the said notes were subjected to phenolphthalein powder and after putting the phenolphthalein powder demonstration was made in the office of the Investigating Officer. He also admits that the same amount was given to him to give the same to the petitioner and further admits that mahazar was drawn and his signature was taken and he admits mahazar Ex.P.3 contains his signature. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that the police took him and the witnesses to the room in which the petitioner was staying. He admits that he himself and his shadow witness went to the room of the petitioner. He enquired with regard to his pending application and the petitioner told him that he will do his work. It is suggested that the petitioner demanded the money and he gave the money, but the same was denied. Except demand and acceptance, he has supported the case of the prosecution. He admits that after coming out from the room, he gave signal to the police. When such being the case, if he has not demanded and accepted the money, what was the need in giving signal to the police. Hence, it is clear that the complainant has turned hostile only in respect of demand and acceptance of money. Insofar as remaining evidence with regard to giving the complaint in terms of Ex.P.2 and drawing the entrustment mahazar in terms of Ex.P.3 and also seizure of the money, at the instance of the accused, he has accepted the case of the Department and this has been considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer also considered the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 i.e. shadow witness, panch witnesses and Investigation Officer and submitted the report dated 21.9.2015. 37. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution. The Enquiry Officer also considered the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 i.e. shadow witness, panch witnesses and Investigation Officer and submitted the report dated 21.9.2015. 37. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution. But while submitting the report, the Enquiry Officer in paragraph No. 10 discussed in detail the evidence of the complainant and also the evidence of panch witnesses, shadow witness and the Investigation Officer and held that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the said report, the Lokayuktha vide recommendation dated 3.2.2015 considering the report of the Enquiry Officer in short discussed in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 and held that the charges have been proved against the petitioner and recommended to take action against him and recommended to punish him by denying 30% of pension permanently under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Rules. It is also important to note that based on the said recommendation, the Government, vide Annexure-A5 dated 18.8.2015, passed an order to deduct 30% of pension of the petitioner permanently exercising Rule 214(1)(a) of the Rules. It has to be noted that though the entrustment was made under Rule 14A of the Rules, the recommending authority has invoked Rule 214 of the Rules and so also the Government vide Annexure-A invoked Rule 214 of the Rules. When such being the case, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has no authority to continue the departmental enquiry against him cannot be accepted. 38. It is also pertinent to note that Rule 214 of the Rules enables the State Government to take action against a Government servant who have been retired from service when the criminal misconduct has been proved. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has no authority to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after his retirement cannot be accepted. There is a specific provision under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Rules to take action against the retired Government servant when misconduct is proved. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.L. Gulati (supra). In this judgment, the Apex Court did not accept the contention of the delinquent official. In paragraph no. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.L. Gulati (supra). In this judgment, the Apex Court did not accept the contention of the delinquent official. In paragraph no. 18 of the judgment, the Apex Court discussed with regard to whether it amounts to grave misconduct or negligence and in coming to the conclusion on merits, it is held that it amounts to negligence and not grave misconduct. Hence, modified the judgment. Hence, this judgment is not applicable to the case on hand having considered the facts of the case. 40. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra). No doubt in this judgment and in the judgment in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra), the principles laid down are one and the same. Once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested with the respondent for continuing the disciplinary proceedings even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits. Hence, these two judgments are not applicable to the case on hand, since there is a express provision and there is a clear rule under Rule 214 of the Rules that even with regard to retired Government servant also, the powers are vested with the Government to take action against the retired employees. 41. It is also important to note that the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of N. Mani (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In this judgment, the Apex Court clearly held that in the absence of specific mention of it, the power vested with the Government would not vitiate the exercise of power. If an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law. 42. 42. This judgment is a three Bench judgment and the same is applicable. The earlier judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the judgments delivered by division benches. Hence this judgment will prevail and the same is also on the point. The other two judgments referred by the petitioner is not on point. It is very clear that when the law exists, the authority can take a decision and by mentioning Rule 14A of the Rules does not preclude the Government to take a decision against the retired employee. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Both Rule 14A and Rule 214 of the Rules has to be read conjointly. 43. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and having applied the principles relied in the judgments, it is clear that when the Rule permits the Government to initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 214 of the Rules, the very contention and grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court cannot be accepted. The Tribunal while considering the matter held that when the criminal misconduct has been proved, the Court has to examine the same on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the same has been considered. Acquittal in criminal case does not preclude the Government from initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In the criminal case, it requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and in a case of departmental enquiry, it requires the preponderance of probability. 44. On perusal of the grounds urged before the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioner has not raised the specific ground that the Government has no authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the retired Government servant and only for the first time, he has raised the said ground, before this Court. Having considered the matter on merits, and the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined as PWs. 1 to 4 before the Enquiry Officer and though PW-1 partly turned hostile, the material available before the Court establishes that the petitioner has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,000/- and he was trapped and misconduct was proved. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal misconduct has not been proved cannot be accepted. 1,000/- and he was trapped and misconduct was proved. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal misconduct has not been proved cannot be accepted. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal has considered the material on record and also the grave misconduct of the petitioner. 45. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.