JUDGMENT :

In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) the appellant viz., Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned single judge, by which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 18.06.2002 by which the respondent was compulsorily retired has been quashed and a direction has been issued that he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter.

2. The respondent was employed as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the establishment of the Corporation and at the relevant time was posted in Bellary District. He was trapped for accepting the bribe of Rs.1,000/-during 1994. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section with 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the respondent was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt. Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal, which was also dismissed on 19.03.1999.

3. After dismissal of the criminal appeal, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the appellant and a charge sheet was issued to the respondent containing the following two charges:

Charge No.1: You, ABE -Sri.KNM Sreekantaswamy, While working as Asst. Executive Engineer, KEB, Bellary Rural, on 27.07.1994, demanded the complainant -Sri.H.Sambashiva, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o Hariginadoni Village, Taluk and District Bellary, to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/-for supply of electrical energy to the IP set of borewell in Sy.No.143 of the same village. Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming and a Board Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1988.

Charge No.2: In continuation of the above demand, you, ABE, demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,000/-from the above named complainant on 28.07.1994 in order to do the above official work. Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Board Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1988.

4. The departmental enquiry was conducted through Lokayukt who in turn delegated the enquiry to the Deputy Registrar Enquiry-II, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore. In the aforesaid enquiry, both the charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 30.07.2001, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent vide order dated 18.06.2002. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge who by an order dated 03.03.2011, inter alia held that since, the complainant was not consistent in his statement before the criminal court and in the domestic enquiry, by itself is a sufficient ground to hold that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were bad in law. The order dated 18.06.2002 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement was quashed and the respondent was held entitled to all the emoluments. In the aforesaid factual background, the respondent has approached this court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not take away the right of the employer to initiate or continue a departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and ought to have appreciated that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which decision is made.