Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Chidananda, S/O Dayananda Shettigar - Petitioner
Versus
The Upalokayukta And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21835 of 2015 (GM-KLA)
Decided On : 13-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis on the applicability of trial court decisions to disciplinary proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's observations on the issues. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 23) |
ORDER :
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
| A | Background |
| A | Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner |
| B | Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 |
| C | Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 3 |
| D | Points for Consideration |
| E | Whether the decision of the learned Trial Court dated 30.03.2013 is binding upon the Respondent No.3-Authority and subsequently the Disciplinary Committee? |
| F | Whether the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3-Authority can run parallelly to the criminal proceedings before the learned Trial Court? |
| G | Whether the recommendation letter dated 03.09.2014 issued by Respondent No.1- Upa-lokayukta and the subsequent entrustment of investigation to the Additional Registrar Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayukta can be held to be valid in law? |
| H | Whether the decision taken by the Respondent No.3-Board Committee dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the Petitioner from service, requires any interference at the hands of this Court? |
| I | Answer to Point No.5: What order? |
A. Background
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records relating to the Enquiry report dated: 30-08-2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: A, the recommendation letter dated: 03/09/2014 issued by the Respondent No.1 in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: B and the decision taken by the 3rd Respondent Board committee meeting for dismissal of the Petitioner, in the Board Meeting which was held on 18-03-2015 in Subject No.92/21 vide. Annexure-C.
(ii) Issue any appropriate order or direction or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and to quash Enquiry report dated 30-08-2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: A, the recommendation letter dated: 03/09/2014 issued by the Respondent No.1 in No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-33/2010 Vide Annexure: B and also the decision taken by the 3rd Respondent Board committee meeting for dismissal of the Petitioner, in the Board Meeting which was held on 18/03/2015 in subject No.92/21 vide Annexure-C
(iii) G rant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent no.3 authority – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), in the year 2007 to the post of ‘Assistant Executive Engineer’ (in short: ‘AEE’) and came to be posted as the AEE to the O&M Sub-Division, BESCOM, Gudibande Taluk.
3. The Petitioner claims that he was a sincere and honest employee and discharged his duties with utmost integrity.
4. One Sri. Devaraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’) is an Electrical Contractor and a resident of Varalakonda Village, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, who conducts the business of installing electrical connections and wiring works for residential customers.
5. In the complaint dated 28.12.2007, it is stated that the complainant approached the Petitioner – AEE to grant approvals for three applications for electrical connections to the Secretary, Varlakonda Village Panchayath, Sri. Krishnappa s/o Narayanappa of Balenahalli and Sri. Shivanna s/o Nanjappa of Polampalli. In furtherance of the same, the Petitioner is claimed to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- for each application, amounting to a total of Rs. 1500/- for the approval and issuance of electrical connections to the aforesaid applicants.
6. The complainant held back from conforming to this demand, and he reached out to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Chickaballapur District and filed a complaint against the alleged demands of the Petitioner, following which a ‘
The standards of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings differ; acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
The standards for departmental inquiries differ from criminal trials; an acquittal does not prevent disciplinary actions if the acquittal is not honorific.
Exoneration in a disciplinary proceeding does not automatically terminate criminal prosecution; both proceedings are governed by different evidentiary standards.
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fai....
An acquittal in a criminal case influences disciplinary proceedings if based on identical facts; punitive actions must respect judicial findings to avoid injustice.
Disciplinary proceedings can be unjust if based on identical circumstances leading to a criminal acquittal, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence.
Disciplinary proceedings for corruption may stand despite the non-examination of the complainant if there is sufficient corroborative evidence consistent with the misconduct charged.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
