ORDER : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quashing the order dated 31.07.2024 in No.NAHAE 565 MNY2014 passed by the 1 st respondent compulsory retiring the petitioner from service. (Annexure-A); ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quashing the enquiry report dated 29.11.2020 in No.LOK/INQ/14-A/644/2014/ARE-11 passed by the 3 rd respondent (Annexure-B); iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the acquittal order dated 26.09.2018 in Special CC No.271/2014 passed by the Court of the LXXVIII Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A) Bengaluru (CCH-79) has highly arbitrary and illegal (Annexure-C). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was initially appointed under the CMC. On coming into force of BBMP, the petitioner was incharge of Ward No.64 as Assistant Revenue Officer under respondent No.2. The petitioner had carried out her duties and functions in accordance with law. 4. One Shashidhar M, S/o Muddaiah, working as Revenue Collector in the same office filed a complainant against the Petitioner, with mala fide intention and with vengeance on 29.11.2013, alleging that the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5000/-. The Complainant gave complaint before the Lokayukta Police Inspector stating that, three days prior to giving of complaint, petitioner asked him to give Rs.5,000/- as bribe to be paid to several committees of B.B.M.P. and told that if he do not give the amount, Committee members of B.B.M.P. will visit his Ward and may submit report against him and he may have to face serious action. 5. On 28-11-2013, again the petitioner demanded amount from complainant and threatened him. Complainant recorded the conversation with Petitioner in his Mobile and then transmitted it to C.D. Thereafter, along with C.D., complainant gave complaint. However, the said clips on superficial observation does not show that the petitioner has made any such demand. 6. The state government by its order dated 21.11.2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusted the 3 rd respondent to investigate. However, the said clips on superficial observation does not show that the petitioner has made any such demand. 6. The state government by its order dated 21.11.2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusted the 3 rd respondent to investigate. The 3 rd respondent took up the investigation and issued notice to the petitioner to answer for the charges. The petitioner on the receipt of notice appeared and filed the written statement, denying all the allegations. 7. On the day of trap, complainant came to petitioner's office and at the time when petitioner was not in her office, complainant has keep a sum of Rs 5000/ in the petitioner draw and later when the petitioner returned to her office, complainant came again when the petitioner was back in office and forced to take the money and a trap team came that time and asked petitioner to hand over the amount kept in the draw and at that time, Petitioner was caught hold by the police for false allegation. It is the case of the petitioner that she had no official work that was pending, which was connected to the complainant. 8. The committee without considering the petitioner's case has filed enquiry report dated 29.11.2022 forwarding recommendation dated 01.12.2022 to punish petitioner with removal from the service for being guilty of misconduct under rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966. Further, based on the same compliant, allegations and documents, a criminal proceedings in Special CC No. 271/2014 was filed and after full-fledged trail petitioner was found not guilty and petitioner was acquitted from the charges leveled against her for the offences under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide order dated 26.09. 2018. 9. It is contended that inspite of acquittal, the 2nd respondent issued one more notice dated 31.01.2023 to show cause to the enquiry Report dated 29.11.2022. The petitioner on the receipt of the show cause notice have given her detail reply dated 12.02.2024, and requested not to accept the enquiry report and consider the reply and allow the petitioner to retire gracefully and honourably after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner on the receipt of the show cause notice have given her detail reply dated 12.02.2024, and requested not to accept the enquiry report and consider the reply and allow the petitioner to retire gracefully and honourably after attaining the age of superannuation. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, she received the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, on 06.08.2024, to Compulsory retiring the petitioner under section 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification Control and appeal) Rules 1957, 1957). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition. 10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any statements of objections. 11. Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and conduct of the petitioner disentitles her from seeking any relief. It is submitted that the complainant and the panch witness went inside the office of the Petitioner and the complainant gave the tainted notes to the Petitioner and she received it from her right hand and counted it with her both hands and kept it inside the drawer of her table. Further, the complainant informed the I.O. that the Petitioner has received the amount and the I.O. has got both hands of the Petitioner washed in the solution separately and solution turned pink colour. 12. It is further submitted that the enquiry officer has submitted the report only after proper appreciation of materials on record. 13. It is contended that on the basis of the complaint filed by one M. Shashidhara, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. It is contended that mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground to drop the departmental proceedings. The nature and scope of criminal case are very different from those of departmental disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that in a criminal case, the charge sheet is required to prove beyond the reasonable doubt, which is in turn require detail corroboration of evidence from different sources to establish the sequence of events etc. The nature and scope of criminal case are very different from those of departmental disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that in a criminal case, the charge sheet is required to prove beyond the reasonable doubt, which is in turn require detail corroboration of evidence from different sources to establish the sequence of events etc. Whereas in context of departmental enquiry, the charge can be said to be established if there is some evidence to support the charge as a conclusion is to be drawn based on the principal of preponderance of probability. There is sufficient material against the petitioner for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant. The disciplinary authority has rightly passed the order of punishment and the same is in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Heard Sri. K.N. Phanindra, the learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Latha S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sumana Baliga, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. Praveen Raikote, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Government Advocate. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner in a criminal case and in the disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. He also submits that the witnesses examined in the criminal case were the same witnesses examined before the enquiry officer. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge after full- fledged trial has recorded a finding that all the facts coupled with non-availability of any corroborating evidence would raise a serious doubt about the accused accepting tainted notes from PW.1 and then counting it and keeping it in the table drawer as stated by the PW.1 and further also recorded that recovery of the tainted note does not prove the guilty of the accused and when there is probable doubt raised about the accused receiving the tainted notes from complainant, and there is no evidence to prove the alleged acceptance of amount, and case of accused is probable, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 16. The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order did not consider that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the witnesses examined in the criminal case are similar in the disciplinary proceedings and same witnesses were examined. 17. 16. The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order did not consider that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the witnesses examined in the criminal case are similar in the disciplinary proceedings and same witnesses were examined. 17. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GM Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in ( 2006) 5 SCC 446 , Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in ( 1999) 3 SCC 679 . S.Bhaskar Reddy vs. Superintendent of police and another reported in ( 2015) 2 SCC 365 . The division bench of this Court in the case of Aejaz Hussain vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.203239/2019 disposed of on 29.05.2020 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Munagobinda Samantaray reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 284 , Ramlal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in ( 2024) 1 SCC 175 and Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar in Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025 disposed of on 23.04.2025. Hence on these grounds, he prays to set aside the order of punishment and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the nature and scope of enquiry in the criminal proceedings are totally different from one in the disciplinary proceedings. He also contended that mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground to drop the disciplinary proceedings. He submits that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner to prove the charges levelled against her. The enquiry officer after providing sufficient opportunity has submitted a report. He also submits that the charges can be said to be established if there is some evidence to support the charge, as a conclusion is to be drawn based on principles of preponderance of probability. 19. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. C.Nagaraju and another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 367 . 19. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. C.Nagaraju and another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 367 . Hence, it is contended that the enquiry officer has rightly recommended for the removal of the petitioner from service. It is contended that the guilt of misconduct committed by the petitioner is apparent on the face of record, and after examining the crucial witnesses and on appreciation of their testimony, in right perspective, the enquiry officer recommended the removal of the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 20. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 21. There is no dispute that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Revenue Officer under respondent No.2. On the basis of a complaint submitted by Shashidhar M., S/o Muddaiah, working as a Revenue Collector in the same office, who had alleged that the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-, a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No. 64/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 22. On the same day i.e. on 29.11.2013, a trap was held and recovered a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 vide its order dated 21.11.2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusted the investigation to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 took up investigation and issued article of charges. The petitioner replied to the said article of charges. Meanwhile, on the basis of the complaint, allegation and documents, a criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.271 of 2014 was disposed of. 23. The Sessions Court acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The disciplinary authority, without considering the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case, passed an impugned order. 24. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine and compare the charges and witnesses examined in both the proceedings , which reads as follows: Comparison of charges and witnesses 25. The disciplinary authority, without considering the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case, passed an impugned order. 24. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine and compare the charges and witnesses examined in both the proceedings , which reads as follows: Comparison of charges and witnesses 25. Learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, has recorded in its finding that the complainant was examined as PW.1. Learned Sessions Judge, while appreciating the evidence of PW.1, i.e., the complainant, has recorded that PW.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that there was no official work or favour to be done by the accused to him. He has also stated that the revenue inspector- Eshwar, told him on 26.11.2013 that the accused informed that Tax and Finance Committee and Accounts Committee are demanding amount and he have to meet the accused. Witness has stated that the committee demanding amount is true and even in his earlier office such demand was made, but he has not paid the amount. 26. Smt. T.S. Savitha, who is a punch witness examined as PW.3. During the cross-examination, she has stated that she did not know the happening at the spot, and she was asked to join the complainant as a shadow witness, along with Jayaprakash and the Lokayukta Police Inspector in office compound of the accused. 27. PW.4 - Jayaprakash is another punch witness. He admits that, he came to know that the accused was not in the chamber, only on the say of the complainant and thereafter they both come out and he sat with Lokayukta police Inspector, which is inside the compound of that office. He has stated that only after reaching the chamber of the accused, he came to know who is accused and he did not know the conversation that had between the complainant and accused during this period. He stated that in the table drawer there were several papers and in between those papers, in a cover, tainted notes were found and PW.3 has taken out the tainted notes from the drawer. 28. The prosecution examined PW.5-Nagarajaiah, who worked as Deputy Commissioner-West. In the cross- examination, he admits that he was not aware about the petitioner. 29. He stated that in the table drawer there were several papers and in between those papers, in a cover, tainted notes were found and PW.3 has taken out the tainted notes from the drawer. 28. The prosecution examined PW.5-Nagarajaiah, who worked as Deputy Commissioner-West. In the cross- examination, he admits that he was not aware about the petitioner. 29. The learned Session Judge, after recording the evidence, has recorded a finding that all these facts coupled with non-availability with any corroborating evidence would raise serious doubt about the accused accepting tainted notes from PW.1 and then counting it and keeping it in table drawer and when there is no probable doubt raised about the accused receiving tainted notes from the complainant, and there is no evidence to prove the alleged acceptance of amount and case of the accused is probable. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 30. In the disciplinary inquiry, the complainant was examined as PW1, T Savitha as PW.2, Dr. Anil Kumar PG, Investigating Officer was examined as PW.3 and Jayaprakash, a shadow witness, was examined as PW-4. 31. In the criminal case, the complainant was examined as PW.1 and Lakshmi Narayana was examined as PW.2 (Punch witness). T.S. Savitha examined as Panch witness- PW.3, Jayaprakash examined as PW.4- panch witness, L.Nagarajaiah- Deputy Commissioner examined as PW.5, Babu D.K - Revenue Inspector examined as PW.6, Rekha Kadaresh examined as PW.7 and Dr. Anil Kumar P.G, Investigating Officer examined as PW.8. 32. In the instant case, departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in a departmental case against the petitioner and the charges before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case lodged against the petitioner on the basis of evidence and material collected against her during the inquiry and investigation has reflected in the charge sheet, and factors mentioned are one and the same. On the other hand, the charges, evidence, witness, and circumstances are one and the same. 33. In the present case, the criminal and the departmental proceedings are already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely raid conducted on the petitioner's office, recovery of articles there from. 34. On the other hand, the charges, evidence, witness, and circumstances are one and the same. 33. In the present case, the criminal and the departmental proceedings are already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely raid conducted on the petitioner's office, recovery of articles there from. 34. The Investigating Officers i.e., PW.4 in the departmental proceedings and PW.8 in the criminal proceedings were examined who claim relying upon their statement came to conclusion that the charges were established against the petitioner. 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 guilt alleged against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the petitioner by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charges have not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the judicial pronouncement was made after regular trial and on hot contest. 35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and others in Civil appeal No.5497 of 2025 , [arising out of SLP(c) No.9818/2017], held as follows: "Issue No.2- The aforesaid discussion on the first issue seals the fate of the respondents. However, since arguments were advanced in respect of this issue too, we propose to briefly answer the same. 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, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive." 36. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the findings recorded in G.M.Tank (referred to supra) and Ramlal vs. State of Rajasthan (referred to supra), reiterated the exposition of law and further held in para No.48, and para No.50, which reads as follows: "48. To assess the degree of similarity between the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in the disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is indeed crucial to review the materials placed before the Court where such an issue arises. However, we regret, absence of the departmental file has disabled us from looking into the same. "50. To assess the degree of similarity between the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in the disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is indeed crucial to review the materials placed before the Court where such an issue arises. However, we regret, absence of the departmental file has disabled us from looking into the same. "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. 37. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Maharana Pratap Singh (referred to supra). 38. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are identical. The disciplinary authority, without considering the judgment passed in the criminal proceedings, has passed an order of punishment i.e., compulsory retirement. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority would be unjust, unfair, oppressive and is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of GM Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others, S. Bhaskar Reddy, Superintendent of Police and another Union of India vs. State of Rajasthan (referred supra). 39. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in ( 1999) 3 SCC 679 , whether a question arise for a consideration is that whether the departmental proceeding and a criminal case, on the basis of the same set of facts and evidence, can be continued simultaneously? and this Hon'ble Apex Court answered in para No.22 which reads as follows: 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (1) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. and this Hon'ble Apex Court answered in para No.22 which reads as follows: 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (1) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the 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, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case. will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case, does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 40. It may not be of assistance to the respondents in the instant case for the reason that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and departmental proceedings of which the reference was made on a different set of facts and evidence having no nexus or co-relationship, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (referred supra) is not applicable to the case on hand. 41. There is no dispute that the set of rules and evidence on criminal procedure would not apply to the departmental proceedings. M. Paul Anthony (referred supra) is not applicable to the case on hand. 41. There is no dispute that the set of rules and evidence on criminal procedure would not apply to the departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order of conviction, is necessary to degree of proof, necessary to record commissioner of delinquency rule relating to the appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings, is also not too similar in the criminal law. 42. The burden of proof is on the prosecution unless the prosecution is able to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He cannot be convicted by the court of law. On the other hand, in departmental inquiry, a penalty be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". The acquittal of the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge that does not facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State, when the charges, evidence, witness and circumstances are not similar. However, when the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, there cannot be acquittal in one proceedings and punishment under the another proceedings. 43. This Court is in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of G.M. Tank, Ramlal, and Maharana Pratap Singh (referred supra). The said judgment covers the case on hand. The set of judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 44. The disciplinary authority without considering the said aspect has passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the exposition of law referred to supra. The impugned order is arbitrary, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 45. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The order passed by respondent No.1 dated 31.07.2024 vide Annexure-A and enquiry report dated 29.11.2020 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B, are hereby, set aside. iii. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits that would flow from reinstatement within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly.