UMESH S/O VITTAL BIRADAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the KSAT') at Annexure-B whereby his application to quash the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the State Government vide order at Annxeure-A9 as a disciplinary measure for the proved charges under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 was compulsorily retired in accordance with the Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules'), came to be dismissed. His prayer before this Court is for quashing the orders at Annexure-B and Annexure-A9.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was working as a Village Accountant at Revathgaon, Taluk Indi. On a complaint lodged by one Gajanan S. Pujari before lokayukta police on the allegation of demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- to remove the name at column No.11 in the Revenue documents, the Lokayukta Police registered a case against him. The eventuality followed, after pretrap mahazar, in the presence of two official witnesses, the Investigating Officer raided the office of the petitioner and conducted trap mahazar. The tainted bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- passed from the complainant to the writ petitioner was recovered from his possession, his hand wash proved that he had received the tainted currency notes from the complainant. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet to the Court, parallelly, departmental enquiry was initiated. Criminal prosecution ended in his acquittal. The departmental enquiry was entrusted by the Government to the Lokayukta. Enquiry was held by appointing the Additional Registrar, Enquiries I as the Enquiry Officer. On conclusion, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Upa-Lokayukta-I, Karnataka State thereafter recommended to the Government for compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the said report was accepted vide order at Annexure-A9; the Government as a measure of punishment for the proved charges ordered for his compulsory retirement.

(3.) Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned suffers from error of jurisdiction; the Enquiry Officer committed serious error in not appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to the effect that petitioner had lent loan to PW.3 and the cash of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the petitioner during the trap mahazar was the very same amount. Absolutely, no iota of evidence was placed before the Enquiry Officer to assume that there was either demand or acceptance of bribe. There was nothing to presume misconduct or dereliction of duty. The authorities failed to consider the fact that on the very same charge and same set of evidence, the Special Court had acquitted him from all the charges. The Special Judge had observed that there was no evidence at all for demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. The Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta-I had no jurisdiction to make recommendation while forwarding the report of Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority which ought to have considered the materials independently was influenced by the recommendation of the Hon'ble Upa- Lokayukta. The punishment order of compulsory retirement is an error of law and the same is strikingly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner.