Disciplinary proceedings can be unjust if based on identical circumstances leading to a criminal acquittal, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence.

ORDER :

K S HEMALEKHA, J.

The present writ petition is filed by the State assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.02.2022 in Application No.1138/2018 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) whereby, the application filed by the respondent, challenging the Government's order, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was allowed. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the disciplinary penalty and directed reinstatement of the respondent into service forthwith, along with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits to which the respondent is legally entitle.

Brief facts:

2. One Veerashetty lodged a complaint against the respondent, who was serving as a First Division Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, alleging that the respondent had demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- in connection with an application submitted by Veerashetty for the conversion of his agriculture land bearing Sy.No.6/2, measuring 04 acres 20 guntas situated at Hamilapur village. In the complaint, it was stated that the bribe was allegedly demanded for dispatching and supplying a copy of the conversion order, and it is further alleged that the respondent accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- in this regard. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.6/2012 by the Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Thereafter, a trap was laid and recovered the bait money. A charge sheet was filed in Spl. Case No.12/2013. Subsequently, the Lokayukta issued observation note based on the said incident. The respondent has submitted his reply to the said observation. The report was submitted, recommending initiation of an enquiry against the respondent. The Lokayukta entrusted the matter to Upalokayukta, based on the Government order, appointed the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-10 as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer issued Article of Charge, alleging that the respondent demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 28.08.2012.

3. The respondent filed objections, denying the charges and asserted that he neither demanded nor received any bribe. During the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority examined four witnesses and marked eight documents. The respondent examined himself as DW.1 and produced two documents. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report concluding that the charge was proved. Based on that report, the Upalokayukta recommended for imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent initially approached the Tribunal in Application No.6104/2017 challenging the enquiry report, but later withdrew it with liberty to re-approach after the final order. Upon passing of an order imposing compulsory retirement, the respondent has filed the present application before the Tribunal challenging the said order. The Tribunal, by its impugned order, held that the evidence presented before the disciplinary inquiry suffered from material contradictions and failed to establish the crucial element of demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent. It noted that PW.1- the complainant, had categorically admitted during cross-examination that the respondent never demanded money, and further admitted that no documents were pending before the respondent at the time of alleged demand as the relevant work had been completed. Additionally, PW.2 - the shadow witness, deposed that the respo