Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2210
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S DIXIT, JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ
PAPANNA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 8507 of 2024
In disciplinary proceedings, the severity of proven misconduct justifies dismissal, and claims of coercion must be substantiated to overturn such decisions.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ jurisdiction - Dismissal from service - The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order upholding his dismissal for grave charges of misconduct, including accepting money for securing a job. The Tribunal found the disciplinary proceedings properly constituted, and the charges substantiated. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Disciplinary proceedings - The court held that the petitioner, an Under Secretary, failed to prove coercion in making payments linked to misconduct. The defense was not credible given his position and the nature of the allegations. (Paras 4.1-4.4)
(C) Proportionality of punishment - The court emphasized that the severity of the charges warranted dismissal, and long service does not mitigate serious misconduct. (Paras 4.4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested his dismissal for allegedly receiving Rs.10,50,000 for securing a government job, claiming duress from a police officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found no errors in the disciplinary process and upheld the Tribunal's decision.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the petitioner's defense regarding coercion and the appropriateness of the dismissal penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and the evidence supported the charges, with the severity of the misconduct justifying dismissal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 27.01.2024 whereby, his Application No.4487/2023 has been negatived. In the said Application, he had challenged the Government Order dated 28.8.2023 awarding the punishment of dismissal from service, grave charges leveled against him having been proved in a disciplinary enquiry.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the money transaction between his client and the third party was not connected to service condition at all; in fact, there was no money transaction between the petitioner and the said third party who alleged that he had given Rs.10,50,000/- for securing a government job; petitioner had offered the explanation that he had given cheques in question only because of the pressure/threat of the Police Inspector concerned. All relevant factors having not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and later by the Tribunal, the indulgence of this court is eminently warranted.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents with equal vehemence resists the petition making submission in justification of the dismissal order and the order of the Tribunal. He points out that in a properly constituted enquiry, the grave charges against the petitioner having been established, he has been dismissed from service; petitioner not only has given back the money to the third party and has settled the cheque bounce cases before the Criminal Court; the proceedings of the Criminal Court cannot be doubted; the Tribunal having considered all aspects of the matter, has upheld the punishment of dismissal from service and a Writ Court ordinarily should not interfere whilst exercising extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested vide
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
4.1 Petitioner is not an official of the lower rung; he was holding the post of Under Secretary in the Department of Public Works; he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on the grave charge of receiving Rs.10,50,000/- for securing government job to the payer. His defense was that he had paid this money to the payer by cheques inasmuch as the Police Inspector had asked him to make the payment, failing which dire consequences would follow. The disciplinary proceedings were properly constituted and held with full participation of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and submitted the report. A copy of the report was given to petitioner to which he made a representation against. All that having been duly considered, the petitioner has been handed dismissal order by way of punishment. After perusing all the papers, we do not find any substantive or procedural error in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, we cannot readily interfere with the order of the Tribunal, which has employed accumulated wisdom in framing the same.
4.2 The stand of the petitioner that he was coerced to make the payment, does not merit acceptance and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly petitioner is not a lower rung official; he was holding a coveted position of Under Secretary in the Government of Karnataka. Secondly, no reasonable person holding such a high post would yield to police pressure of the kind. If petitioner were to be a peon or SDC, we would have viewed this submission a bit differently.
4.3 There is yet another reason as to why petitioner’s cock and bull story of yielding to police threat cannot be believed. There was a cheque bounce case against the petitioner in C.C.No.1988/2020. Petitioner being the accused, had filed a Joint Memo signed by himself and his lawyer reporting settlement. The Joint Memo dated 12.3.2020 reads as under:
“The above name accused & complainant submit a
