JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from the service was set aside is the subject matter of this Appeal. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in the year 1997. On 21.06.2003, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore framed a charge against the Respondent which is as follows:

“Charge:

That you DBE Sri. C. Nagaraju, while working as Junior Engineer (Elecl.,) at KEB, VV-1 (O&M) South Zone, Vidyaranyapuram Circle, Mysore during the year 1998, one Sri. K. Chandrasekhar, Class II Electrical Contractor, Resident of Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore, (hereinafter called as ‘Complainant’) had approached you for obtaining electrical power supply to the house and shop of his customer Smt. Savithramma, on 14-5- 1998, and you demanded a sum of Rs.1,250/- as illegal gratification, and on 16-5-1998 you once again demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.750/- as advance amount, from the complainant for doing the said work of giving electrical power supply, and thereby you being a public servant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and did an act which was unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby you have committed an act of misconduct as enumerated under Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of K.E.B. Employees Service (Conduct) Regulation Rules, 1988.”

2. The Respondent submitted his explanation to the charge. After conducting an inquiry, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, who was nominated as the Inquiry Officer, held that the charge against Respondent No.1 was proved. The Lokayukta examined the inquiry report and approved the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Having regard to the serious misconduct committed by Respondent No.1, the Lokayukta imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under Clause VIII of Regulation No.9 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Discipline, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987.

3. The final notice was issued by the Appellant seeking an explanation from Respondent No.1 as to why the report of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted. The reply submitted by Respondent No.1 was considered, and by an order dated 23.03.2007, Respondent No.1 was dismissed from service. The said order was affirmed by the Appellant Authority on 24.06.2008. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was allowed by a learned single Judge by a judgment dated 08.09.2011. The Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant is before this Court.

4. It is relevant to note that Respondent No.1 was tried by the Court of Special Judge, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as “the Criminal Court”) for committing offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the PC Act”). He was acquitted by the Criminal Court as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

5. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition relying upon the judgments of this Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446. It was held that the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal case are the same and Respondent No.1 ought not to have been dismissed from service after he was found not guilty by the Criminal Court. The Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge by observing that an order of dismissal from service could not have been passed once the Respondent was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the char