Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically exonerate an official from departmental disciplinary proceedings, as they operate on different standards of proof (preponderance of probability for inquiries vs. beyond reasonable doubt for criminal trials) and the scope of judicial review of inquiry reports is strictly limited to cases of perversity.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (herein after referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) in application No.10354/2025 and to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith and grant all consequential benefits.

2. The facts leading to filing of the application before the Tribunal are as under:

a. The petitioner -applicant was Village Administrative Officer at Bhoomi Section of Athani Taluk Office, Balagavi District. On 02.07.2013, a complaint was lodged against the applicant in Belagavi Lokayukta Police Station by one Sri Mallappa alleging that the applicant has demanded for illegal gratification amount of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of sending file in order to prepare sketch map, pot hissas etc., of the land bearing Survey No. 211/2B measuring 01 acre 19 guntas 8 annas in Savagaon village of Athani Taluk. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered against the applicant on 02.07.2013 in Crime No.6 of 2013 at Balagavi Lokayukta Police Station. The trap was laid. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and case has been registered against the petitioner in Special Criminal Case No.23/2014 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Judge, Balagavi. In the said special case, evidence has been recorded. The Special Court after appreciating the evidence on record has acquitted the petitioner –applicant by judgment dated 25.06.2016.

b. The fact of trap of the petitioner was intimated to the Lokayukta Office, which has issued the observation note to the petitioner on 09.12.2014 as per Annexure -A3 calling for his reply as to why recommendation should not be made to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 01.01.2015 to the Lokayukta Office, contending that already in respect of the same allegation criminal case is instituted and is pending in Special Case No.23/2014 and requested not to make any recommendation for departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case. Uplokayukta has submitted the report on 02.02.2015 to the respondent No.1-Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act thereby recommending to entrust the departmental inquiry to it against the petitioner. On receipt of the said report, respondent No.1 has passed order dated 10.03.2015 thereby entrusting the departmental enquiry to the Upalokayukta against the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Thereafter, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries (ARE)-10 was appointed as Enquiry Officer who issued the articles of charge on 11.08.2016 to the petitioner. In furtherance of enquiry, the petitioner has appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 22.10.2016 on which date his first oral statement was recorded. On 05.12.2016, the petitioner submitted his written statement specifically denying charge.

c. During the course of enquiry, four witnesses were examined on the side of disciplinary authority and two witnesses were examined on the side of defence. After completion of evidence of all the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the second oral statement of the petitioner on 29.12.2022. Subsequently, on 10.07.2023, the petitioner has submitted his written brief by raising multiple factual and legal contentions, praying the Enquiry Officer to hold that charge is not proved