An acquittal in a criminal case influences disciplinary proceedings if based on identical facts; punitive actions must respect judicial findings to avoid injustice.

ORDER :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quashing the order dated 31.07.2024 in No.NAHAE 565 MNY2014 passed by the 1^st respondent compulsory retiring the petitioner from service. (Annexure-A);

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quashing the enquiry report dated 29.11.2020 in No.LOK/INQ/14-A/644/2014/ARE-11 passed by the 3^rd respondent (Annexure-B);

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the acquittal order dated 26.09.2018 in Special CC No.271/2014 passed by the Court of the LXXVIII Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A) Bengaluru (CCH-79) has highly arbitrary and illegal (Annexure-C).

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

3. The petitioner was initially appointed under the CMC. On coming into force of BBMP, the petitioner was incharge of Ward No.64 as Assistant Revenue Officer under respondent No.2. The petitioner had carried out her duties and functions in accordance with law.

4. One Shashidhar M, S/o Muddaiah, working as Revenue Collector in the same office filed a complainant against the Petitioner, with mala fide intention and with vengeance on 29.11.2013, alleging that the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5000/-. The Complainant gave complaint before the Lokayukta Police Inspector stating that, three days prior to giving of complaint, petitioner asked him to give Rs.5,000/- as bribe to be paid to several committees of B.B.M.P. and told that if he do not give the amount, Committee members of B.B.M.P. will visit his Ward and may submit report against him and he may have to face serious action.

5. On 28-11-2013, again the petitioner demanded amount from complainant and threatened him. Complainant recorded the conversation with Petitioner in his Mobile and then transmitted it to C.D. Thereafter, along with C.D., complainant gave complaint. However, the said clips on superficial observation does not show that the petitioner has made any such demand.

6. The state government by its order dated 21.11.2014 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusted the 3^rd respondent to investigate. The 3^rd respondent took up the investigation and issued notice to the petitioner to answer for the charges. The petitioner on the receipt of notice appeared and filed the written statement, denying all the allegations.

7. On the day of trap, complainant came to petitioner's office and at the time when petitioner was not in her office, complainant has keep a sum of Rs 5000/ in the petitioner draw and later when the petitioner returned to her office, complainant came again when the petitioner was back in office and forced to take the money and a trap team came that time and asked petitioner to hand over the amount kept in the draw and at that time, Petitioner was caught hold by the police for false allegation. It is the case of the petitioner that she had no official work that was pending, which was connected to the complainant.

8. The committee without considering the petitioner's case has filed enquiry repor