STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. N. KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Services Department and the Karnataka Lokayukta, by its Registrar have preferred these writ petitions assailing the order dated 23.11.2017, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short), in Application No.2616/2017. Therefore, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The respondent-Sri. N. Krishna Reddy, approached the Tribunal being aggrieved by order dated 24.04.2017, whereunder punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the respondent. The charge leveled against the respondent was that while he was working as Assistant Drugs Controller and Licensing Authority, at Bagalkot, a trap was laid by the Lokayukta Police and he was caught red-handed, receiving bribe money of Rs.8,000/-, in Prakash Medical Stores of Todabalagi village. The Lokayukta Police initiated action on a complaint lodged by one Siddaiah Sangaiah Lakkundimath of Savalagi in Jamkandi Taluk.

(3.) Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the Upalokayukta, and the Enquiry Officer, Additional Registrar (Enquiries II), submits that the Tribunal erred on several counts. Firstly, it was submitted that the Tribunal could not have re- appreciated the evidence on record, to upset the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Secondly, it was submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the order of imposition of punishment did not consider the explanation offered by the respondent to the second show-cause notice and the impugned order was held to be made on the basis of recommendation of the Upalokayukta and the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind, independently. The learned counsel has taken us through the depositions and crossexamination to substantiate his contention that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. It was also submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the charge leveled against the respondent in the charge memo and in the second show-cause notice are different and on that ground allowing the application of the respondent herein, is contrary to the well settled proposition of law and decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. In this regard, the learned counsel submits that minor discrepancy in the charge memo and second show- cause notice may not be fatal, if it is evident that the delinquent officer has understood the charge.