In disciplinary proceedings, charges can be established on the preponderance of probabilities without strict adherence to evidentiary rules, allowing for a reasonable penalty if evidence suffices.

ORDER :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

The petitioner, a dismissed Police Head Constable is before this Court, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.10.2020 in Application No.2045/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty of dismissal dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure-A7) is rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

The petitioner was working as a Police Head Constable and at the relevant point of time, he was in the Special Police Forest Mobile Squad, Chikkamagalur. It is stated that on 02.06.2016, the petitioner received a communication that one of his friend, Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, was arrested in Crime No.119/2016. On receiving the said information, the petitioner went to the said Basavanahalli Police Station around 7.30 a.m. in order to ascertain the circumstances under which his friend was arrested. While the petitioner was talking to the Station House Officer, the said Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, escaped from custody. It is stated that, to escape from their responsibility, the Sentry and the Station House Officer made a statement that at the instance and with the aid of the petitioner, the said Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, escaped from custody. A case was also registered against the petitioner for aiding the said Sri.D.Suresh to escape from custody and for assaulting one Sri.Ningegowda, Sentry, snatching his rifle, hurting him and escaping in a bike in which the petitioner had come to the Police Station. In the said crime registered against the petitioner, investigation was conducted and while filing the charge sheet, name of the petitioner was dropped, based on the statement of Sri.Ningegowda, Sentry. In the meanwhile, enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 6 of Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for short “1965 Rules”) was initiated to impose major penalty, by issuing charge memo dated 04.05.2017. The Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry submitted a report dated 24.06.2018 (Annexure-A3) holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-A5) enclosing the enquiry report (Annexure-A3) and also enclosing the reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice stating that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge, as such, accepting the enquiry report, he requested to pass the order of exoneration. The 4^th respondent/Disciplinary Authority, under order dated 06.06.2020, imposed punishment of dismissal and also treated the period of suspension as suspension. Questioning the said order of penalty of dismissal, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, under impugned order, rejected petitioner’s application, holding that the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the entire material on record, imposed the penalty of dismissal which is reasonable and proportionate. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for petitioner as well as Smt.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy, would submit that the order of the Tribunal is the result of non-appreciation of contentions raised by the petitioner. Moreover, he submits that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are not at all considered and that, while consid