Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs from criminal cases; charges of misconduct must be specific and supported by evidence.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

W.P.No.9100/2024 is filed by the Registrar-Lokayukta and W.P.No.6443/2025 is filed by the State challenging the order of Tribunal dated 18.11.2023 passed in Application No.5681/2022.

2. The respondents in the said Application No.5681/2022 challenged the penalty imposed against the applicant in coming to the conclusion that he committed misconduct in the departmental enquiry. It is his case that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 20.10.1987, thereafter he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1996. Subsequently, he has been promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer in the year 2007. He was retired from service on 31.05.2015. Pursuant to his appointment, the applicant carried on his duties and responsibilities with honesty, integrity and there is no any adverse remark against him throughout his service career. On the basis of the complaint dated 13.05.2009 filed by one Sri H. Danappa, S/o. Eranna, 3^rd Division Contractor made to the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, a criminal prosecution as well as departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant. While the applicant was working as a Executive Engineer No.1, Thungabhadra Canal Division, Munirabad, the complainant had alleged that the applicant had demanded bribe of Rs.56,000/- in order to clear his balance bill of Rs.2,30,000/- and on negotiation, the bribe money was fixed at Rs.50,000/-. A copy of the complaint dated 13.05.2009 is produced as Annexure-A1. On the basis of the said complaint, the Lokayukta police have taken up suo motu investigation and filed its observation note dated 17.08.2011 vide Annexure-A2, wherein it is stated that on 13.05.2009, the Investigating Officer took steps with pancha witness, complainant and shadow witness reached the lake view guest house, Munirabad and as per the pre-arranged proceedings, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was allegedly received by the applicant and they having completed the trap procedure, drawn the mahazar.

3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 entrusted the case of enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta under Section 14-A dated 24.11.2011 vide Annexure-A3. The enquiry officer issued the Articles of Charge vide Annexure-A4 and in the said proceedings, the complainant Sri Danappa was examined as P.W.1 and was also cross-examined, one Sri Mounesh was examined as P.W.2. The copies of the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are produced as Annexures-A5 and A6. The applicant also submitted his detailed written arguments before the enquiry officer vide Annexure-A7. The enquiry officer on appreciation of the evidence on record and the arguments advanced, filed its enquiry report dated 17.08.2017 vide Annexure-A8, wherein opined that the disciplinary authority has proved the charge as framed against the applicant. The Upa- lokayukta on the basis of the alleged enquiry report makes a recommendation dated 23.08.2017 to respondent No.1 imposing the punishment of withholding of 50% of pension permanently vide Annexure-A9. Applicant already retired from service on 13.05.2015. On the basis of alleged enquiry report and also alleged recommendation of the Upa-lokayukta, respondent No.1 issued second show-cause notice to the applicant on 27.09.2017 vide Annexure-A10. Thereafter, the applicant filed his detailed reply after receiving report of the enquiry officer as per Annexures-A11 and A12.

4. It is contented that the disciplinary authority without appreciating the material on record independently by not applying its independent judicious mind passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2018 only on the basis of the recommendation of Upa-lokayukta. The co