In disciplinary proceedings, the Court will not re-appreciate evidence under Articles 226/227 unless there is a violation of natural justice, an unfair inquiry, or findings unsupported by evidence, as the standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) is distinct from criminal trials.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/08/2024 IN APPLICATION No.4557/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW APPLICATION No.4557/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

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

C.A.V. ORDER

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

Heard Sri H.S. Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for Sri R. Ranganatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4557 of 2023, has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Regional Transport Officer, Mysuru East, and also holding additional charge of the post of Regional Transport Officer, Mysuru West, was subjected to a complaint lodged by one Sri M. Anandakumar alleging demand of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for renewal of the licence of Aishwarya Driving School. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.6/2015 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.1 Articles of charge dated 10.05.2017 were issued against the petitioner. A detailed inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved.

3.2 Based on the inquiry report, the Upalokayukta recommended to the Government imposition of the penalty of withholding 50% of the pension. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice dated 08.03.2023. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 19.06.2023, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 31.07.2023, imposed the penalty of permanent withholding of 50% of the pension.

3.3 The said order was called in question before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected the application.

4. Sri H.S. Gaurav, learned counsel appearing for Sri R. Ranganatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had passed orders for renewal of the licence on 04.07.2015, whereas the trap was conducted on 24.07.2015 based on a complaint lodged nearly 20 days after renewal of the licence. It is contended that the complaint was ill-motivated and lodged with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner.

4.1 It is further submitted that, as on the date of the complaint and the trap, no work relating to the complainant was pending consideration before the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, once the renewal had already been granted on 04.07.2015, the question of demand of bribe after a lapse of 20 days would not arise.

4.2 Learned counsel also contends that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and that the defence evidence adduced by the petitioner has not been appreciated in its proper perspective by the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the order imposing penalty was passed without due consideration of the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner and t