Disciplinary proceedings' standards differ from criminal trials; acquittal does not bar disciplinary action if evidence supports charges.

ORDER :

D.K. SINGH, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning the order of punishment dated 24.07.2019, wherein the petitioner had been inflicted with the punishment of withholding 50% of his pension permanently and to treat the suspension period as 'leave without pay' after conclusion of the domestic enquiry against him. The petitioner has also challenged the enquiry report dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-B), as well as the recommendation of the Lokayukta for withholding 50% of the pension permanently vide the recommendation dated 05.03.2019.

The petitioner faced domestic enquiry conducted by learned Lokayukta for the following charges:

"Charge:

That you, Sri. R. Hiriyanna Gowda, (here in after referred to as Delinquent Government Official, in short DGO), while working as the Junior Engineer (Elcl.), MESCOM, Konaje Branch, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1500/-on 05/03/2010 from complainant Sri. G.Ajmal Khan S/o Sri. K. Abdul Gafar Khan, R/o Chamlapura Hundi, behind BDO 01 Office at Nanjanagudu Town in Mysore District for line clearance and giving electrical connection to the building of Nishara Public School in Harekala Village of Mangalore Taluk that is for doing an official act, and thereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Board Employee and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 (1) of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1988."

2. Thus, the charge was for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500/- on 05.03.2010 from the complainant, Sri. G.Ajmal Khan, for line clearance and to give electrical connection to the school Building of Nishara Public School in Harekala village of Mangaluru Taluk.

3. The petitioner was issued the notice by the Enquiry Officer to file his defence to the aforesaid charge, and he accordingly filed his defence. After considering the defence, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry against the petitioner (DGO).

4. An FIR was also lodged against the petitioner on the same day, i.e., on 05.03.2010, under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d), read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said FIR, the Investigating Officer after investigation of the offence submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. In his defence statement filed in response to the notice issued by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner denied the charges.

6. During the enquiry, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and 14 documents came to be marked as Exs. P1 to P14 on behalf of the disciplinary authority. After closure of the evidence of the disciplinary authority, second oral statement of the petitioner (DGO) was recorded. The DGO examined himself as DW.1 and he produced three documents, which were marked as Exs.D1 to D3 in support of his defence.

7. The enquiry officer framed following two points for consideration:

“1. Whether the charge framed against the DGO is proved by the disciplinary authority?

2. What order?”

8. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Electrical)/Section officer in MESCOM, Konaje Sub-division, Mangaluru during the relevant period. The complainant, who was running the school, requested the DGO to clear the line and to provide electrical connection to the said school building. According to the complainant, the DGO demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Out of the demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/-, the petitioner (DGO) received Rs.500/- as part payment on 04.03.2010, insisting the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,500/- on the next day i.e., on 05.03.2010. This conversation with the DGO was recorded by the complainant on a mobile phone belonging to one Sri. Sripal. The said conversation was transferred to a Compact Disk. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe to the DGO to get the work done, he lodged a complaint with th