Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri C Nagaraju on 13 August, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO.17495/2011(S-DE)
BETWEEN
1 KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD
CORPORATE OFFICE
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE
REP. BY THEIR DIRECTOR.
2 CHAMUNDI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
SRI HARSHA RAOD,
MYSORE
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri : P S DINESH KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
1 SRI C NAGARAJU
S/O SRI CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.2455, II CROSS
SUBHAS NAGAR, MYSORE 570 007
2 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REP. BY THE REGISTRAR
M.S.BUIDLNIG, BANGALORE 1
... RESPONDENTS
2
(By Sri : SUBBA RAO,SR. COUNSEL FOR C/R1 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.9898/2009(S-DE) DATED 08/09/2011.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent-1.
2. The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9898/09 dt.8th September 2011 wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent - Nagaraju.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
3
The respondent joined the service of the appellant - Board in 1974 as a Meter Reader-cum- Clerk. Later he was promoted as Junior Engineer in 1997. He was dismissed from the service on 23.3.2007 in the backdrop of Articles of charge framed against him. The charge levelled against him was that he demanded illegal gratification in order to give electrical connection to the residential premises and a shop of one Smt. Savithramma on 14.5.1998 and that demand was for Rs.1,250/- and later it was settled for rs.750/- on 16.5.1998 and on the complaint lodged by one Chandrashekar, a Class-II Electrical Contractor, with the Karnataka Lokaukta and based on the same a criminal case was filed before the Special Judge at Mysore in Sessions Case No.38/1999. The Special Court at Mysore has acquitted the respondent holding that he did not demand any illegal gratification and that he did not receive any amount. Therefore, he requested the learned Single Judge to set aside the order of punishment. The learned Single Judge after hearing 4 the parties came to the conclusion that when the respondent has been honorably acquitted by the Special Court, on the same set of allegation he could not have been dismissed from the service.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and this order is called in question in this appeal.
4. The main contention of Mr. Dinesh Kumar is that the learned Single Judge has mis-directed himself in not considering that the order of imposition of penalty of dismissal was prior to the Judgment passed by the Special Court in Mysore. Therefore, any order of acquittal passed subsequent to the order of penalty imposed pursuant to Disciplinary proceedings, cannot be a ground for the High Court to interfere with such order under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore he requests to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Per contra, Sri.Subbarao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contends that learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the Writ 5 Petition, even though by over sight the learned Single Judge has wrongly mentioned that the respondent has been acquitted much earlier to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it will not tilt the balance in favour of the appellant to reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge because the respondent has been honorably acquitted by the Criminal Court. When he was acquitted by the Criminal court and on the same set of facts and findings, he cannot be dismissed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we do not see any merits in this appeal for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the charges levelled against the respondent before the Enquiry Officer and the charges framed in the Criminal Court are one and the same. The question that was to be considered in the Disciplinary proceedings and also in the Criminal court were:6
1) whether there was a demand by the respondent for illegal gratification?
2) Whether he had in fact received the illegal gratification or not?
7. On recording the evidence when a competent Criminal court as Special Judge, Mysore has given a specific finding that prosecution did not prove the charges levelled against the accused and acquitted the accused honorably and as it is not a case of acquittal by giving benefit of doubts, the finding of the Criminal Court is always binding on the Disciplinary Authority. Though the degree of evidence proved that is required for imposing penalty by the Disciplinary Authority is altogether different from the findings of the Sessions Court for acquittal, still whenever an accused is honorably acquitted, such accused shall not be punished by way of dismissal based on the summary evidence recorded in the Disciplinary proceedings.
7
8. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in entertaining the petition.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak