Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 2170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
John Michael Cunha, J.
Manjunath R S/O Late Ramalingaiah - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary, Urban Development Department And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7968 OF 2020(S-RES)
Decided On : 10-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri, T Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. R.Srinivasa Gowda, Aga, Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, Advocate, Sri. Venkatesh.S. Arbatti, Spl.Pp)
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 304 and 338 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) - Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966- of Rules 3(1) (i) to (iii) – Promotion - Illegal gratification - Petitioner joined services of BBMP as a class-IV employee - He was promoted as a Tax Inspector and thereafter, he was promoted as Revenue Inspector - He retired from service - While he was working as Revenue Inspector, he was caught red-handed while receiving certain sum as illegal gratification from complainant for making joint khatha in name of complainant and his son - Criminal prosecution was launched against petitioner/DGO in Spl.C.C. under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - After trial, petitioner was acquitted of those charges by judgment and order - Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against petitioner by Commissioner, BBMP by issue of Articles of Charges - Petitioner denied the charges - Hence, Disciplinary action was ordered and enquiry was entrusted to Karnataka Lokayuktha - Lokayuktha nominated the Additional Registrar, Enquiries-II as the Inquiry officer to enquire into the Articles of Charges and Imputations of misconduct against the DGO - Whether respondent had no power and authority to withhold pension for misconduct proved against petitioner – Held, though learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently disputed the validity of the order passed by respondent – Disciplinary Authority on the ground that impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed solely based on recommendation made by Upa Lokayuktha and in violation of discretion conferred on him under the Statute to independently consider enquiry materials placed before him yet, a perusal of the order indicates that respondent No.2 has examined all material placed before him referred in the preamble namely, entrustment of enquiry to enquiry officer, report of enquiring officer as well as the recommendation made by Upa Lokayuktha - Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed solely on the basis of recommendation made by Lokayuktha without considering enquiry material and without exercising the discretion vested in him - Having regard to gravity of charge proved against petitioner and nature of the misconduct committed by petitioner, in my view, respondent No.2 was justified in directing withholding of 50% of the pension amount - Said penalty in court view is in commensurate with delinquency proved against petitioner - In view of reasons, court do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 has not addressed any arguments.
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set-aside the enquiry report dated 16.03.2019 submitted by respondent No.4-Additional Registrar Enquiries-11, Karnataka Lokayukta(Annexure-C), Bengaluru and the order passed by the second respondent –The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Pallike(for short ‘BBMP’), Bengaluru imposing penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the pension amount payable to the petitioner vide Annexure-A.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Petitioner joined the services of BBMP on 12.02.1976 as a class-IV employee. In the year 1995, he was promoted as a Tax Inspector and thereafter in the year 2007, he was promoted as Revenue Inspector. He retired from service on 31.05.2014. While he was working as Revenue Inspector, he was caught red-handed while receiving Rs.3,000/-as illegal gratification from the complainant for making joint khatha in the name of the complainant and his son. Criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner/DGO in Spl.C.C.No.33/2012 under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of those charges by judgment and order dated 06.10.2017.
3. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by The Commissioner, BBMP by issue of Articles of Charges on 26.12.2012. The petitioner denied the charges. Hence, Disciplinary action was ordered and the enquiry was entrusted to Karnataka Lokayuktha. Lokayuktha nominated the Additional Registrar, Enquiries-II as the Inquiry officer to enquire into the Articles of Charges and Imputations of misconduct against the DGO. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 16.03.2019 in enquiry No.LOK/INQ/14-A/188/2013 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct within the purview of Rules 3(1) (i) to (iii) of The Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
4. On reconsideration of the enquiry report, the Upalokayukta by its order dated 19.03.2019 recommended the Government to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and having regard to the nature of the charges (demand and acceptance of bribe) proved against the petitioner, recommended imposition of penalty of permanently withholding 50% of pension payable to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority viz., the second respondent by the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 imposed penalty on the petitioner withholding 50% of the pension payable to the petitioner.
5. The first limb of challenge is directed against the validity of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. It is contended that the said report is perverse and illegal; the evidence of the parties and the documents are not properly appreciated; the acquittal judgment passed by the Sessions Court has been ignored; serious contradictions appearing in the evidence of the witnesses before the Sessions Court and before the Lokayukta has not been taken note of; Enquiry Officer failed to note that the petitioner was not in a position to do official favour demanded by the complainant.
6. The second limb of challenge is based on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED V. JAVARAI GOWDA AND ORS., ILR 2015 KAR 1615 and it is contended that the recommendation made by Upalokayuktha to impose penalty is bad in law. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment solely relying on the recommendations made by the Upalokayuktha without independently considering the material on record. Further, placing reliance on another decision on this Court in the case of UMESH VITTAL BIRADAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., ILR 2018 KAR 4403, it is submitted that the Disciplinary
