In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; judicial review is limited and cannot involve reappreciating evidence or sitting in appeal over disciplinary findings unless they are perverse or violate natural justice.

C.A.V. ORDER

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

Heard Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner-State, Sri Irfan I. Allanakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 25.05.2022 passed in Application No.2637/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts are that respondent No.1, while working as Revenue Inspector at Koppa-II Circle, Mandya District, was subjected to a complaint lodged by one Sri S.T. Rajegowda alleging demand of a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for effecting change of Khata in the name of the complainant in respect of land bearing Survey No.44/09 of Shambunahalli Village. Pursuant thereto, a criminal case in Special Case No.73/2008 came to be registered against respondent No.1.

3.1 On suo motu investigation by the Lokayukta, an observation note was issued and recommendation was made to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was submitted recommending initiation of departmental enquiry and entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta. Accordingly, an order of entrustment was made under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short “the 1957 Rules”), and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Articles of charge were issued and, after recording evidence, the charges were held proved. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted recommending imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement and withholding of 25% of pension permanently.

3.2 A second show-cause notice dated 10.11.2017 was issued and, after considering the reply submitted by respondent No.1, the Government, by order dated 15.03.2019, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement and permanent withholding of 25% of pension.

3.3 In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 came to be acquitted in the criminal case. The order of penalty was challenged in the aforesaid application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, set aside the penalty and directed payment of all consequential monetary benefits, as respondent No.1 had by then retired from service.

4. Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State, submits that the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of penalty, exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It is contended that the Tribunal placed undue reliance on the evidence of hostile witnesses while ignoring the scientific evidence, including the FSL report, which established the presence and acceptance of the tainted currency notes.

4.1 It is further submitted that the Tribunal examined the matter by applying the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings while considering the correctness of the penalty imposed in departmental proceedings, though the standard applicable to disciplinary proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is contended that this is not a case of “no evidence” and that there is no violation of procedure in the conduct of the enquiry.

4.2 It is also submitted that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the order of penalty and interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.

5. Sri Irfan I. Allanakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the entire case of the disciplinary authori