While courts generally do not interfere with departmental findings of fact, they may modify a disproportionate penalty if it is found to be excessive or inconsistent with statutory sentencing guidelines, even when the underlying charge of misconduct is established by a preponderance of probability.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEARING No.AAKUKA 70 HSM 2007 BANGALORE, DATED 30/03/2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A13 HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.

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 P.H. Virupakshaiah, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.5050/2015 is before this Court impugning the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal').

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services in the year 1998. The petitioner worked as an SDA at CG Hospital, Davanagere, from 17.07.2000 to 31.12.2004. During the said period, one Dr. T.S.

Suresh, a final year postgraduate student of JJM Medical College, Davanagere, lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police on 04.11.2004 alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- for preparation of the salary bill for the month of July 2004.

3.1 Based on the said complaint, Crime No.2/2004 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'). The Lokayukta Police laid a trap on 08.11.2004 and recovered the tainted currency amounting to Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, a charge sheet came to be filed in Special Case No.1/2006 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Lokayukta, Davanagere.

3.2 Based on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. The Upa-Lokayukta, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, forwarded the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Pursuant thereto, an entrustment order under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, was issued for conducting a departmental enquiry

against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed and, upon examination of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued and, by order dated 30.03.2015, the penalty of dismissal from service came to be imposed.

3.3 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the criminal case instituted against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the P.C. Act came to be decided on 25.09.2013, wherein the petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

4. Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the evidence on record and the statements of the witnesses examined in the enquiry.

4.1 It is contended that the complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification was lodged on 04.11.2004, whereas the salary bills for the months of July 2004 and August 2004 had already been forwarded by the petitioner to the cash branch on 26.10.2004. It is therefore submitted that, as on the date of the complaint, the salary