ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-M, and sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to grant the petitioner full pension from the date of the retirement, and with further direction to immediately pay the withheld pensionary benefits along with interest at the rate at 18% per annum from the date it became due till the actual date of payment. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was appointed as a casual labour in Karnataka Electricity Board on 08.03.1979. The petitioner was observed as an Assistant Lineman on 23.07.1981. During in-service recruitment, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Junior Assistant by the Karnataka Electricity Board on 08.06.1989. After the formation of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation, the service of the petitioner was transferred to the Bangalore Electric Supply Company. He was promoted as Assistant vide order dated 02.12.2002. When the petitioner was working as Assistant at Devanahalli Sub-Division of BESCOM, he was the victim of a false case foisted against him. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.03.2011 pending initiation of disciplinary inquiry. On 11.11.2011, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service. 4. The petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings before the Principal Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Special case No. 9 of 2013 and after full fledged trial he was acquitted on 02.01.2015. The petitioner also preceded in the departmental enquiry. Article of charges came to be issued by the Additional Registrar Enquiry No. 4, Karnataka Lokayukta on 28.09.2013. After conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 26.02.2016. 5. Thereafter, the enquiry officer issued one more Articles of Charges dated 16.04.2016. The Upalokayukta, after receipt of the enquiry report, forwarded recommendation on 07.06.2016 recommending penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 03.02.2017 and along with the show cause notice, also received a copy of the report of the enquiry officer as well as the copy of the recommendation forwarded by the Upalokayukta. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 08.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 03.02.2017 and along with the show cause notice, also received a copy of the report of the enquiry officer as well as the copy of the recommendation forwarded by the Upalokayukta. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 08.06.2017. The petitioner received a final order at Annexure-M on 03.02.2021 by which the petitioner’s pension was ordered to be withheld permanently to the extent of 60% and the period of suspension undergone by him will be adjusted towards a leave at his credit, if any, and if no sufficient leave is available, the said period would be treated as leave without wages. The petitioner aggrieved by the final order dated 03.02.2021, filed this writ petition. 6. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is contended that the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner demanded for illegal gratification. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(i) (b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 in SC No. 9 of 2013. 7. It is contended that respondent No.1 Upalokayukta initiated the proceedings and after detailed enquiry, submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to respondent Nos.2 to 4 vide report dated 27.04.2013 for entrustment of the enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta. Further, after perusal of the said report, and perusal of the records, the same was placed for approval of the Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thereafter, the Departmental enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayuktha pursuant to the approval of the Managing Director, by respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.08.2013. 8. It is contended that the enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report on 30.05.2016 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Upa-lokayukta based on the report vide report dated 07.06.2016, has recommended for the imposition of penalty of dismissal for the petitioner from services. 8. It is contended that the enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report on 30.05.2016 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Upa-lokayukta based on the report vide report dated 07.06.2016, has recommended for the imposition of penalty of dismissal for the petitioner from services. The disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry report, and the recommendation by the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice on 03.02.2017 to the petitioner along with the enquiry report. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 08.06.2017. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner has passed an order of punishment i.e., 60% pension is to be withheld. Hence, it is stated that the impugned order passed by the respondents is just and proper. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses examined in the criminal cases and in the disciplinary enquiry were the same witnesses. The complainant C. Nagraj, was examined as PW1 in the departmental inquiry and he was also examined as PW1 in SC No. 9 of 2013, B. Chetan Kumar was examined as PW3 in SC No. 9 of 2013. He was also examined before the enquiry officer as PW.2 and Investigating Officer was examined as PW4 in SC No. 9 of 2013 and he was also examined before the enquiry officer as PW.3. 11. She submits that the charges framed in SC No. 9 of 2013 are similar to the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. She submitted that the criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner for the offences alleged against him on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, and that accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. 12. Further, to buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by 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 disposed of on 23.04.2025 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GM tank. Vs. 12. Further, to buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by 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 disposed of on 23.04.2025 and 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 , Captain Paul Antony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aejaz Hussain versus the State of Karnataka and others in WP No.20323 of 2019 disposed of on 29.05.2020. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charges framed in the criminal case and the charges framed in the departmental proceedings are different, and she submits that mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground to drop the departmental proceedings. She also submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. She submits that, the enquiry officer after providing a sufficient opportunity has submitted a report. She also submitted that the charges are said to be established and there is evidence to support the charges, as a conclusion is to be drawn based on the principle of preponderance of probability. The evidence, and the departmental enquiry proceedings are based on the preponderance of probability. The disciplinary authority has rightly passed an impugned order of punishment. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Lineman in the respondent – Karnataka Electricity Board, and a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification. Based on the complaint, the police registered FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents have issued an article of charges on 28.09.2013. The charges levied against the petitioner are as follows: 2. Based on the complaint, the police registered FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents have issued an article of charges on 28.09.2013. The charges levied against the petitioner are as follows: 2. That, you-DGO Sri Mahadevaiah while working as Assistant, BESCOM, Devanahalli Sub-Division, Bangalore Rural District during the year 2011, complainant Sri K.Nagaraju S/o Krishnappa of Shivaram Electricals at Kattigenahalli, Jaala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk who was working as an Electrical Contractor had taken the work of Smt. Pushpamma of Kaadigaanahalli of Bangalore North Taluk for change of name inspect EDL 3320 and the work of Sri Selva of Vidyanagar Cross in Bangalore North Taluk for getting the sub-connection in DVL 16670 in that connection got registered applications on 10.03.2011 and 14.03.2011 with fee, in that connection he (complainant) met you DGO 14.03.2011 and requested to attend the said work for that you DGO demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from the complainant. On bargaining you DGO reduced the illegal gratification to Rs.1800/- and received a sum of Rs.200/- as advance prior to 16.03.2011 and instructed to him to pay the balance of Rs. 1600/- on 16.03.2011. Thereafter, you DGO demanded and accepted the said bribe of Rs.1600/ near the Ganesha Temple situated near O/o the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Devanahalli Sub- Division, Devanahalli at about 3:26 PM on 16.03.2011. Thereby, you DGO have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the said act of you was un-becoming of a Government Servant and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966. 16. The petitioner was kept under suspension on 16.03.2011 pending initiation of disciplinary inquiry and on 11.11.2011 order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service. The Article of Charges was issued, and there after the petitioner submitted a reply to the Article of charges. The inquiry officer conducted an inquiry. K. Nagaraj, B.S.Chetan Kumar and Dr.S. Prakash were examined in both i.e., in criminal case and in enquiry proceedings. The evidence in both the cases are reproduced as follows: 17. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the evidence, has recorded a finding that there is no evidence to prove the alleged acceptance of amount and the case of accused is probable. 18. The evidence in both the cases are reproduced as follows: 17. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the evidence, has recorded a finding that there is no evidence to prove the alleged acceptance of amount and the case of accused is probable. 18. In the disciplinary enquiry the complainant Nagaraj was examined as PW.1, Panch witness Chetan Kumar was examined as PW.2 and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW.3. 19. Whereas in the criminal case, the complainant Nagaraj was examined as PW.1, Chetan Kumar was examined as PW.3 and I.O., was examined as PW.4. 20. 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 based on the evidence and material collected against him 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. 21. In the present case, the criminal case 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/notes there from. 22. The Investigating Officer i.e., PW.3 in the departmental proceedings and PW.4 in the criminal proceedings was examined who claim, relying upon his 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. 23. 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. 23. 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." 24. 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. 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. 25. 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). 26. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both departmental enquiry, and the criminal proceedings are identical. The disciplinary authority, without considering the judgment passed in the criminal proceedings, has passed an order of punishment i.e., withholding of 60% pension. 26. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both departmental enquiry, and the criminal proceedings are identical. The disciplinary authority, without considering the judgment passed in the criminal proceedings, has passed an order of punishment i.e., withholding of 60% pension. 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). 27. Learned counsel for respondents 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 where a question arose 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 the 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. (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. 28. 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 the 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 respondents in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (referred supra) is not applicable to the case on hand. 29. 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 the 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 31. 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 judgments covers the case on hand. These set of judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 32. The disciplinary authority without adequately considering the said aspect has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-M. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the exposition of law referred to supra. The impugned order at Annexure-M is arbitrary, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 33. 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.4 dated 03.02.2021 vide Annexure-M, is hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly.