Karnataka High Court
Sri Honnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29937
WP No. 50176 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 50176 OF 2019 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HONNAPPA,
SON OF SIDDARAMAPPA PATTEDAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7-LIG,
6TH CROSS,
SHANTINAGAR MSK MILL ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE;
SRI.M.SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
2ND FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by B
K BENGALURU - 560 001.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
MULTI STOREYED BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29937
WP No. 50176 of 2019
SRI.VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 17.08.2019 AS PER ANNX-
F; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPLEMENTATION
AND OPERATION OF ANNX-F, DATED 17.08.2019, AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONER TO CONTINUE HIS EMPLOYMENT IN THE R-3
CORPORATION/BOARD, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE W.P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.08.2019 passed by respondent No. 3, at Annexure-F, by which the petitioner, who was working as an FDA in the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), was compulsorily retired from service and 20% of the pension to which the petitioner was legally entitled was withheld.
2. The petitioner was prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the complaint, the petitioner allegedly demanded a gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the allotment of an LIG house from the KHB. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to Rs. 80,000/-. Dissatisfied with this demand, the complainant filed a complaint with the Lokayuktha police. Following the instructions of the police, the complainant recorded a conversation with the petitioner, in which the petitioner allegedly reiterated the demand of Rs. 80,000/- for the house allotment. The complainant then submitted a form to the KHB office, which the petitioner himself filled out. A case was registered on 23.04.2011.
-3-NC: 2024:KHC:29937 WP No. 50176 of 2019 The Investigating Officer secured the presence of two panch witnesses, but the prosecution alleged that the petitioner did not receive the gratification amount at the time of the trap.
3. The Trial Court, after examining the prosecution evidence, concluded that the guilt of the petitioner was not proved, as there was no evidence indicating that the petitioner demanded or accepted gratification. Subsequently, the Lokayuktha conducted an enquiry based on the charge sheet material and recommended the imposition of a penalty of compulsory retirement. Respondent No. 3 accepted the Lokayuktha's report and passed the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in the absence of evidence proving that the petitioner demanded gratification for the allotment of the LIG house, the impugned order by respondent No. 3 is legally unsustainable. She further argues that the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner on merits, and thus the impugned order is unjustified. In support, she relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 9642/2020, disposed of on 30.01.2024.
5. In response, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 argues that the petitioner was acquitted not on merits but because three prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the voice recording was not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. They argue that the complainant's statement and other charge sheet material indicate that there was a demand for gratification. The Enquiry Officer, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29937 WP No. 50176 of 2019 based on this material, reported that the charges were proven, and respondent No. 3's order was thus justified. In support, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka and Another v. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563.
6. The arguments of learned counsels are duly examined and the material on record is perused.
7. The petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court as the prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand for gratification by the petitioner. Apart from the complaint, there was no substantial evidence to support the allegation of gratification demand. Consequently, the acquittal was not based on technicalities or witnesses turning hostile but rather on the lack of evidence. In the disciplinary enquiry, there was no evidence, apart from the complainant's statement and the charge sheet material, to substantiate the allegation of gratification demand or acceptance. Hence, the impugned order by respondent No. 3, which imposed compulsory retirement on the petitioner, is impermissible and contrary to service rules.
8. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka and Another (supra) at para 3, ruled that unlike criminal prosecution where charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in disciplinary proceedings, misconduct must be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The Court does not act as an appellate forum but reviews the findings of the disciplinary authority based on the evidence provided.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC:29937 WP No. 50176 of 2019
9. The decision in the aforesaid Supreme Court case is not applicable here, as there is no evidence establishing the petitioner's demand for gratification other than the complainant's self-serving statement. Thus, the impugned order by respondent No. 3 is not legally sustainable.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 9642/2020, at para 3, observed, in respect of plea of honourable acquittal & its effect on disciplinary action, as follows:
(a) Generally, offenses are tried in criminal courts, where a person may be convicted or acquitted after trial.
An acquittal typically means that the accused has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not imply innocence but indicates that the prosecution failed to prove its case. However, this does not preclude disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations. The plea of 'honourable acquittal' must be considered in disciplinary actions.
(b) The concept of 'honourable acquittal' is not statutorily defined but can be illustrated. It may arise when an accused is discharged pre-trial or when criminal proceedings are quashed. It may also occur when the trial court's acquittal results from insufficient evidence or failed prosecution.
(c) In considering 'honourable acquittal' in disciplinary proceedings, factors such as false prosecution, lack of evidence, or failed prosecution are considered. The entire judgment in the criminal case should be reviewed, and it is advisable for the delinquent employee to provide relevant records.
11. In the instant case, the Trial Court's acquittal was not due to insufficient evidence but due to the lack of evidence -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29937 WP No. 50176 of 2019 establishing the petitioner's guilt. Therefore, the petitioner was honorably acquitted, and the impugned order by respondent No. 3 is legally unsustainable and unjustified. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order 17.08.2019 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-F is hereby quashed.
iii. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits flowing from this order setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13