Chidananda, S/O Dayananda Shettigar vs Upalokayukta

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Kar) 401

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

Important Points

The standards of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings differ; acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action.

Subject

Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings

Act Referred

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.13, S.7
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT: S.12

Headnote

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 12(3) - Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant for alleged bribery and misconduct; the acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bind disciplinary proceedings. (Para 19.12)

(B) Distinction in standard of proof: The burden of proof in criminal proceedings is 'beyond reasonable doubt', whereas for disciplinary proceedings it is 'preponderance of probabilities'. (Para 19.9)

(C) Binding nature of the Trial Court decision on disciplinary authority: The findings of the criminal trial are not binding on the disciplinary authority, and both can run parallelly. (Para 20.1)

(D) Dismissal of employee justified upon evidence of misconduct despite acquittal in the criminal trial. (Para 22.11)

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. V.S. Arbatti., Advocate, Sri. A. Chandrachud., Advocate

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 ‘