Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

The petitioner, who is working as a peon in Nada Kacheri, Tavaragere Village, is calling into question the fourth respondent's enquiry report, dated 30-11-2016 (Annexure-G) and the third respondent's letter, dated 3-12-2016 (Annexure-H) recommending to the Government to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.

2. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only working as a peon and that therefore he has no power whatsoever to effect the mutation entry sought by the de facto complainant. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner himself has deposed that the petitioner does not have the power to effect the mutation entry in the revenue records. He submits that it is nobody's case that the petitioner ever demanded and received any bribe amount.

3. He submits that the petitioner is already acquitted in Special Case (PC) No. 4 of 2011 by the Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal. As the witnesses examined before the Criminal Court and before the Enquiry Officer are the same, materials relied upon before the two forums are the same. The Enquiry Officer is not justified in arriving at conclusions, which are at variance with the conclusions reached by the Sessions Court. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy and Another v. Superintendent of Police and Another, (2015) 2 SCC 365. Head Note 'B' of the said decision read out by Sri H.C. Shivaramu is extracted herein below:

"B. Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Criminal proceedings - Acquittal - Effect of, on departmental proceedings - Criminal case and departmental proceedings based on similar facts and evidence-Honourable acquittal of appellants by Trial Court - On facts held, both the Tribunal and High Court erred in not considering undisputed fact that appellants (Armed Reserved Constables) were honourably acquitted by Trial Court for same charge - Hence, dismissal order set aside - Instead of directing reinstatement, appellants to be compulsorily retired and pensionary benefits including arrears from date of judgment of Sessions Court directed to be paid."

4. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 446. The portion below Head Note 'A', read out by him, is as follows :

"In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same.

This is a case of no evidence. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that the appellant is guilty of having illegally accumulated excess income by way of gratification. The Investigating Officer and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. 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 the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. The judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand."

5. Sri H.C. Shivaramu submits that the petitioner's name does not figure in the complaint. He submits that accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Upalokayukta by the disciplinary authority is a foregone conclusion. He submits that this has happened in about 32 cases. He submits that the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has alread