Disciplinary proceedings for corruption may stand despite the non-examination of the complainant if there is sufficient corroborative evidence consistent with the misconduct charged.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19^th January, 2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 and Order dated 29^th August, 2016 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 25^th April, 2018 (Annexure-G) and 02^nd March, 2018 (Annexure-H) to re-instate the petitioner into service and to pay the salary/back wages and other benefits to the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Peon (D-Group) at the respondent No.2-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and was efficiently discharging his duties in the said post. It is stated that the respondent No.3 filed complaint dated 28^th November, 2005 to the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division stating that, he had appeared in M.D. General Medicine Final Examination during the month of Sep-2005 conducted by the respondent No.2-University and had contacted the petitioner, who introduced as he was a official working at the respondent No.2-University and assured the respondent No.3 to let him know the results of the Examination unofficially. In this regard, the petitioner informed the respondent No.3 that, he had failed in one subject out of four subjects. It is further stated that the petitioner had made a demand for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to have passed in the failed subject and after negotiation, the petitioner agreed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and as such, the petitioner demanded for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance. In this regard, the petitioner was trapped by the Lokayukta Police as per the complaint dated 28^th November, 2005 filed by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.1. During the trap, the respondent No.1 recorded the statement of two Panchas and the petitioner was apprehended while the petitioner was accepting the bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent No.3. The charge-sheet was filed by the Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated in a disciplinary proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The respondent No.1, based on the enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 19^th January, 2016 (Annexure-A), for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner presented this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. V. S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2

4. Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Authorities have ignored the fact that the complainant was not examined during the departmental enquiry and was and he was not participated in the proceedings and therefore, the demand styled as 'Bribe' was not proved during the proceedings. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.160/2011 filed against the petitioner came to be disposed of by judgment dated 05^th July, 2017, acquitting the petitioner herein for the same offences for which, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the respondents herein and