IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar employer from proceeding in exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction.
(2) Scope of Judicial Review – In exercise of judicial review, Court does not act as an appellate forum over findings of disciplinary authority.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chadrachud, J.

1. The appeals arise from a judgment dated 29 November 2017 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 25 April 2016 directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery.

2. The respondent was working as a Village Accountant at Revathagao in Indi Taluka of Bijapur District in Karnataka. The charge against the respondent is that he demanded a bribe for deleting the name of a person from Column No. 11 of the RTC with regard to land bearing Survey No. 54, situated at Shirdona Village. A criminal complaint was registered with the Lokayukta police against the respondent for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondent by the Lokayukta police in Special Case No. 20 of 2011 in the Court of Special Judge at Bijapur. During the course of the trial before the Special Judge at Bijapur, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Twenty-two exhibits were marked in evidence. The respondent examined one witness and an exhibit was marked at his behest. By a judgment dated 23 October 2013, the Special Judge gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted him of all charges.

3. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984. Taking note of the complaint, and the fact that the phenolphthalein powdered currency notes were seized from the respondent, the Karnataka Upa Lokayukta-1 held that a prima facie case was established. By an order dated 23 April 2012, exercising powers under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 and Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957, ¹[“1957 Rules”], the Upa Lokayukta-1 recommended the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. On 7 August 2012, the Government of Karnataka entrusted the case to the Upa-Lokayukta for enquiry under Rule 14 (A) of 1957 Rules. By an order dated 14 August 2012, the Upa Lokayukta nominated the Additional Registrar of Enquiries in the Karnataka Lokayukta as the inquiry officer for framing the charge and conducting the inquiry. The following article of charge was framed in the course of the enquiry :

“That you, Sri Umesh Vittala Biradara (here in after referred to as Delinguent Government Official, in short DGO), while working as the village Accountant Revathagao Saja, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 5000/- on 11/05/2011 from complainant Sri. Gajana S/o Shireppa Poojari, R/o: Shiradona, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District for getting deleted the name of one Sri. Nagappa S/o Annappa Muttinavar from Col. No. 11 of RTC in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 54 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas of Shirdona Village of Indi Taluk, that is for doing an official act, and thereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(1) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966.

(Anand R. Deshpande)

Additional Registrar (Enquiries-3)

Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore”

4. By an order dated 22 January 2015, the Lokayukta held that the charge against the respondent was proved and recommended the penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Rule 8(vi) of the 1957 Rules. On 20 February 2015, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the respondent. The respondent contended in his reply that the money seized was not received as a bribe but was for repayment of a loan borrowed by the brother-in-law of the complainant. The respondent also contended that since the Special Judge acquitted him on the same set of facts and evidence, there was