S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J

This Order has been divided into the following Sections

to facilitate analysis:

I

FACTS OF THE CASE

3

II

RELIEF SOUGHT

4

III

CHIEF CONTENTIONS

5

IV

ANALYSIS:-

A. PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS

B. CONTENTION OF BIAS AND REQUIREMENT OF

ENTRUSTMENT OF DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY TO

OFFICER OTHER THAN UPA-LOKAYUKTA

C. WHETHER PREJUDICE IS CAUSED BY

NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS

6

6

18

26

3

I.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The petitioner is working in City Sub-Division,

CHESCOM, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. It

is

alleged

that the petitioner is stated to have demanded a bribe of

Rs.25,000/- for installation of a transformer to the borewell

in the lands of Sri Puttaswamy S/o Boregowda and

Smt.Rathnamma. It is further alleged that part of the bribe

amount was paid and further demand was also made.

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police is stated to have

registered a case in Crime No.4/2015 and had conducted a

trap

while

apparently

the

petitioner

was

receiving

Rs.10,000/- as bribe from Sri G.B. Boregowda.

The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta had

submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner before the

Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in

Spl.C.No.90/2017 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ['P.C. Act' for brevity].

4

4.

Further, as regards the same incident, the

Karnataka Lokayukta had prepared an Observation Note at

Annexure-'C' dated 31.07.2017 alleging that the petitioner

had committed misconduct and was asked to show cause

why recommendation was not to be made to the competent

Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

II.

RELIEF SOUGHT:-

5.

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the

order at Annexure-'J' dated 27.08.2018 whereby the

employer has resolved to hold a departmental enquiry and

has sought for entrusting the same to Upa-Lokayukta; for

setting aside of the entirety of proceedings before the

Karnataka Lokayukta; has sought for a direction to the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pass fresh orders under

Regulation 14(A)(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board

Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal)

Regulations, 1987 ['KEB Regulations, 1987' for brevity]

after independently considering all the material on record

and has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1

5

and 2 to appoint a Retired District and Sessions Judge as

Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry of the alleged

misconduct against the petitioner or in the alternative to

consider

the

representation

dated

10.02.2022

at

Annexure-'P.'

III. CHIEF CONTENTIONS:-

6.

The main contentions raised in this petition are

as follows:-

(a)

Non-supply of documents relied upon in the

disciplinary proceedings resulting in violation of

principles of natural justice which has prejudiced

the petitioner.

(b)

The disciplinary proceedings entrusted to the

respondent No.3 which is the Investigating Agency,

must be entrusted to some other Agency, including

a Retired District and Sessions Judge for the

purpose of having a fair and proper enquiry.

6

(c)

There ought to be stay of disciplinary

proceedings initiated against the petitioner till the

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded

in Spl.C.No.90/2017 pending consideration before

the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Mandya.

IV. ANALYSIS:-

A.

PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS:-

7.

It has been contended that:

(i)

The charges framed in the criminal case i.e.,

in Spl.C.No.90/2017 is identical to the Article of

Charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings.

(ii)

The employee should not be allowed to

disclose his defence when parallel proceedings are

held on the basis of identical charge and same

evidence.

(iii) If before recording of statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the employee is forced to

7

make his defence in the disciplinary proceedings

and his defence that may be taken in criminal

proceedings

would

stand

revealed

causing

prejudice.

8.

The law regardi