Acquittal in criminal cases may impact disciplinary proceedings if both are based on the same set of facts; disciplinary action cannot persist against a person acquitted in criminal court under similar charges.

ORDER :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-M, and sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to grant the petitioner full pension from the date of the retirement, and with further direction to immediately pay the withheld pensionary benefits along with interest at the rate at 18% per annum from the date it became due till the actual date of payment.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a casual labour in Karnataka Electricity Board on 08.03.1979. The petitioner was observed as an Assistant Lineman on 23.07.1981. During in-service recruitment, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Junior Assistant by the Karnataka Electricity Board on 08.06.1989. After the formation of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation, the service of the petitioner was transferred to the Bangalore Electric Supply Company. He was promoted as Assistant vide order dated 02.12.2002. When the petitioner was working as Assistant at Devanahalli Sub-Division of BESCOM, he was the victim of a false case foisted against him. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.03.2011 pending initiation of disciplinary inquiry. On 11.11.2011, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service.

4. The petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings before the Principal Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Special case No. 9 of 2013 and after full fledged trial he was acquitted on 02.01.2015. The petitioner also preceded in the departmental enquiry. Article of charges came to be issued by the Additional Registrar Enquiry No. 4, Karnataka Lokayukta on 28.09.2013. After conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 26.02.2016.

5. Thereafter, the enquiry officer issued one more Articles of Charges dated 16.04.2016. The Upalokayukta, after receipt of the enquiry report, forwarded recommendation on 07.06.2016 recommending penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 03.02.2017 and along with the show cause notice, also received a copy of the report of the enquiry officer as well as the copy of the recommendation forwarded by the Upalokayukta. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 08.06.2017. The petitioner received a final order at Annexure-M on 03.02.2021 by which the petitioner’s pension was ordered to be withheld permanently to the extent of 60% and the period of suspension undergone by him will be adjusted towards a leave at his credit, if any, and if no sufficient leave is available, the said period would be treated as leave without wages. The petitioner aggrieved by the final order dated 03.02.2021, filed this writ petition.

6. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is contended that the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner demanded for illegal gratification. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(i) (b) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and th