IMPORTANT POINT
The acquittal in a criminal trial should be considered in Disciplinary Proceedings, and there is a need for protection of honest employees from false implication.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner an employee dismissed on the ground of proven act of bribery, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 10.02.2020 whereby his Application No. 3668/2019 has been dismissed. In the said Application, petitioner had challenged the Penalty Order of Dismissal from service dated 24.05.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that his client has been acquitted after a full-fledged trial and the said acquittal is honourable; in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. in Petitioner’s Application No. 1864/2017 the very Tribunal had directed the Respondent No. 1 to consider the Criminal Court order of acquittal along with his Reply to the 2nd Show Cause Notice; such consideration has not taken place and that, had it taken place, the Petitioner would have emerged victorious in the Disciplinary Proceedings. He further submits that there is thus a gross error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court for setting the same at naught and thereby doing justice to the Petitioner.

3. After service of notice, the State is represented by learned AGA and the Lokayukta speaks through its Panel Counsel. Both they vehemently resist the Petition contending that: criminal trial and Disciplinary Proceedings are different from each other; what happens in the former has nothing to do with what should happen in the latter; acquittal in criminal trial is not a bar against holding Disciplinary Enquiry; the Disciplinary Authority having considered all aspects of the matter accepted the Enquiry Report that found the Petitioner guilty of charges and then has levied the penalty of dismissal from service; the matter having been examined by the Tribunal, relief has been rightly denied to him. A Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction cannot undertake a deeper examination of impugned orders. Therefore, they submit, Petition should be dismissed on settled principles.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Petition papers that are bulky. Having done that, we are of a considered view that this Petition deserves to be allowed and relief needs to be granted to the Petitioner, for the following reasons:

(1) AS TO NON-CONSIDERATION OF ACQUITTAL ORDER WHILST LEVYING PUNISHMENT:

(a) The specific charge against the Petitioner both in the criminal case i.e. Spl. Case (LOK) No. 3/2012 and the Disciplinary Proceedings, was verbatim same namely, that whilst working as the Panchayat Development Officer, he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 4,000/- on 08.07.2011 from the complainant Mr.Chandrappa for changing the Katha in respect of a house site. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Special Judge (Lokayukta), Davanagere, handed an acquittal order on 30.01.2017. The Tribunal in its order dated 08.08.2018 in Petitioner’s Application No. 1864/2017 having quashed Order dated 25.02.2017 had directed the Respondent No. 1 to consider the matter afresh in the light of Acquittal Order and the reply filed by him.

(b) An extreme punishment of dismissal from service is levied on the petitioner. Job being the only source of livelihood, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have shown due seriousness in treating the matter. However, that is not done. Except referring to the Acquittal Order, there is absolutely no discussion by the first Respondent, in the impugned order of penalty. Referring to an order is one thing and discussing about it, to arrive at a decision is another. More often than not, the authorities that be, labour under a wrong impression that the reference per se is tantamount to discussion. We do not subscribe to this militantly wrong view. Had the Acquittal Order been duly adverted to, the outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings would have been much different and to the advantage of the delinquent employee. Thus, its non-consideration despite Tribunal’s mandate, constitutes the first error apparent on the face of