The standards for departmental inquiries differ from criminal trials; an acquittal does not prevent disciplinary actions if the acquittal is not honorific.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the enquiry report of the Karnataka Lokayukta dated 15.12.2015 bearing No.LOK-1/ARE-1/Enq-165/2013 (Annexure-A) and recommendation dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-B) and an other recommendation dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure-B1). The petitioner has also challenged the punishment order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-C) for petitioner's compulsory retirement under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Public Service Rules and the order dated 06.08.2021 (Annexure-J) for relieving from his duty from 06.08.2021.

2. A complaint was filed before the Lokayukta by one Sadashiva stating that on the applications filed before the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Maski Taluk, Raichur District, one house was allotted to his father Gangappa and his elder brother Sidram. The complainant approached the petitioner enquiring about sending letter to the State Bank of India for sanction of loan towards the houses allotted to his father and his elder brother. For attending the applications and doing the needful, the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for each house i.e, in total Rs.10,000/-. When the complainant pleaded the petitioner about his inability to pay Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner reduced the bribe amount to Rs.8,000/- and told him to pay Rs.6,000/- in advance and balance amount of Rs.2,000/- after the receipt of subsidy amount. The Lokayukta caught the petitioner in possession of Rs.6,000/- bribe amount for which mahazar was prepared.

3. The petitioner did not furnish any explanation about the bribe money having been found in his possession. After the completion of the enquiry on the allegation of accepting the bribe, which was recovered from the petitioner, the Lokayukta issued show cause notice as to why a recommendation should not be made to the competent authority for initiating departmental enquiry against him in the matter. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the said show cause notice, and a report was submitted under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 , recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

4. Considering the report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Government entrusted enquiry to the Lokayukta vide order dated 23.02.2013 to conduct disciplinary enquiry. The following charge was leveled against the petitioner:

"That you, Sri.Rajasekhara, SDA, Indi Town Municipal Council, Bijapura demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.6,000/- on 10.03.2011 from complainant Sri. Sadashiva S/o Gangappa Kaalebag, resident of Indi, Bijapura District for recommending fresh applications to the SBI, Indi for sanction of loan towards the houses allotted to the father of the complainant Sri. Gangappa and his elder brother Sri.Sidram that is for doing an official act, and thereby you DGO had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of Government Servant and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

5. The Investigating Officer submitted the enquiry report. The charge against the petitioner was found proved. Having considered the enquiry report, the Lokayukta vide impugned order dated 08.01.2016 recommended for imposition of penalty of with-holding of 50% of the pension permanently of the petitioner. The Government vide impugned order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-C) imposed punishment of compulsory r