CAV ORDER :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The petitioner, a Special Tahsildar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.09.2020 in Application No.3675/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the petitioner’s challenge to order of entrustment of enquiry to Lokayukta dated 03.07.2013 as well as nominating the Enquiry Officer under order dated 17.07.2013 is rejected.

2. Facts necessary to decide the lis are that, the allegations against the petitioner is that he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.50,000/- on 02.09.2011 from the complainant Sri.R.Muniraju for making entries of the land in the revenue records. After investigation, the second respondent entrusted the enquiry to the first respondent by Government Order dated 03.07.2013 (Annexure-D). In pursuance of the said entrustment of enquiry to first respondent, the first respondent nominated the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and the nominated Enquiry Officer issued Articles of Charge dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure-E). On the same incident of demanding and accepting bribe to do official favouritism, charge sheet was filed under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘1988 Act’) in Special Case No.106/2012 on the file of the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Mysuru. The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 24.04.2017 in Special Case No.106/2012, after trial, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of 1988 Act. Against the said judgment and conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.750/2017 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 09.02.2018 acquitted the petitioner by setting aside the conviction passed by the Sessions Court. The first respondent filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be dismissed by order dated 27.08.2018. 3. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.3675/2019 questioning the Government Order dated 03.07.2013, entrustment of enquiry to first respondent as well as nomination of Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal, vide impugned order rejected the petitioner’s application observing that the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are totally different and they operate in different fields with different objectives. Questioning the said order as well as entrustment of enquiry, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Monish Kumar for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers as well as the case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Monish Kumar for petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not appreciating the contention of the petitioner that when the petitioner is acquitted in criminal proceedings, on the same set of facts, evidence, witnesses and material, the second respondent could not have entrusted departmental proceedings to 1^st respondent. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the witnesses and material placed on record before the Special Court and also invites attention of this Court to articles of charge to say that the same witnesses who are examined before the criminal Court are the witnesses before the departmental proceedings. It is submitted that the