Disciplinary proceedings necessitate adherence to evidentiary standards distinct from criminal trials; an acquittal does not automatically negate disciplinary action, but findings must be based on thorough evidence analysis.

C.A.V. ORDER :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri. Sridhar G. Bidre, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.8990/2014 has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.11.2002 as a Village Accountant in the Revenue Department. While discharging his duties as Village Accountant at Kavali, a trap was laid against him by the Lokayukta Police on 30.08.2007, pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Sri. N.V. Chandrashekar. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for effecting change of Khata in his name in respect of Survey No.218 of Talagunda Village. Consequently, a case came to be registered in Crime No.05/2007 by the Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was tried before the Special Court, which ultimately resulted in the petitioner’s acquittal on 30.06.2012.

4. Simultaneously, the Government entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry, pursuant to which Articles of Charge were issued. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges as proved, and consequently, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. The Tribunal, at the instance of the petitioner, rejected the application holding that the charges stood proved through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

5. Sri. Shidhar G. Bidre, learned counsel for Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complainant did not support the prosecution. It is contended that though the complainant entered the witness box as PW.1, in his cross- examination he admitted that the petitioner had not demanded any money for doing his work. Learned counsel further submits that PW.2 also admitted that there was neither demand nor acceptance of any bribe. It is urged that the Enquiry Officer, by misreading the evidence, submitted a report holding the charges proved. It is further contended that the Tribunal, being influenced by the findings in the enquiry report without independently appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses, wrongly dismissed the application and confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service.

6. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner to establish the charge. Hence, the enquiry report, being contrary to the evidence on record, suffers from perversity. It is further contended that the Tribunal placed reliance on the provisions of the Evidence Act, which are strictly not applicable to departmental enquiries.

7. Per contra, Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is sufficient to establish the charge against the petitioner. It is contended that the enquiry report as well as the order of the Tribunal are based on the evidence available on record.

8. We have considered the submissions of learned counse