IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No.13234 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI M. S. YOGAMURTHY, S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, (UNDER THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL)

R/AT THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577502.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S. BHAGWATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJ S JAIN, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU AND:

Location: HIGH COURT OF

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUIILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA 577502.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA 577502.

4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577502.

5. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALUR 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.5804/2019 AT ANNEXURE-E.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), K. V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.5804/2019 has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'].

3. The brief facts of the case are that one Thippeswamy lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police against the petitioner alleging demand of illegal gratification of ₹1,500/- for effecting change of Katha, while the petitioner was serving as the Village Accountant of Singapura Village. The Lokayukta Police conducted a trap and seized a tainted amount of ₹1,000/-. A charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after obtaining sanction from the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga. In the meantime, the Government, by order dated 16.10.2012, entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, ‘the KCS (CCA) Rules’], and Articles of Charge were issued on 21.12.2012.

3.1 The criminal case was concluded by acquitting the petitioner on 06.02.2015, as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.

3.2 The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.02.2018 holding the charges proved against the petitioner, and the Lokayukta, by its recommendation dated 26.02.2018, proposed that the petitioner be dismissed from service. Consequently, a second show-cause notice was issued on 19.03.2018. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, placing reliance on the order of acquittal passed by the Special Court. However, the Government, by order dated 06.05.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service.

3.3 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application holding that acquittal in a criminal case would not ipso facto result in exoneration from the charg