IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.50814 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI K. HARISH S/O LATE ANNI POOJARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAVLUKA OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, PUTTUR-574 201 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT RESIDING AT RANABAIL HOUSE UJIRUPADE POST, PUTTUR D.K.DISTRICT-574 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 17.10.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.7890 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 25.08.2016, PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A 12.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant in Application No.7890/2016 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 17.10.2019 passed therein.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein while working as Second Division Assistant in Taluka Office, Bantwal Taluk, is said to have demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,500/- from one Ramaraya Naik for correcting the RTC entries with regard to land bearing Sy.No.79/2C of Bantwala Taluk. It is stated that the demand is raised on 12.12.2007 when the complainant Ramaraya Nayak is said to have paid Rs.500/- to the petitioner - DGO (Delinquent Government Officer) for doing the official work which he was bonafidely required to do in the course of his employment. When the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- was required to be paid, he was trapped by the Lokayuktha Police and found to be in possession of the gratification amount which was received by him. It is in this background, criminal case was registered against him for accepting illegal bribe and simultaneously departmental inquiry was also initiated which was conducted by the office of the second respondent – Lokayuktha.
3. It is stated that the prosecution case which was initiated by the Lokayuktha police in Special Case No.30/2008 came to be dismissed by judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.06.2016, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was acquitted of the offences alleged against him. However, it is noticed that the said judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.30/2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, D.K., is the subject matter of challenge in Crl.A.No.1814/2016 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court which is pending for admission.
4. In the meanwhile, the departmental inquiry which was initiated against him has resulted in a report being filed by the Enquiry Officer Mr. D.S.Shinde, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayuktha, vide order dated 18.08.2015 in proceedings No.Lok/ARE-3/ENQ-61/2010 vide Annexure-A6, in holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner herein are proved. The said order of Enquiry Officer dated 18.08.2015 is sent to the first respondent – Government by Upa Lokayuktha vide order dated 19.08.2015 bearing No.Lok/ARE- 3/Enq-61/2010 vide Annexure-A7, recommending to punish the petitioner herein with penalty of “dismissal from service” in exercise of powers under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
5. It is thereafter, the first respondent has passed an order in accepting the inquiry report and also the recommendation and consequently, dismissing the petitioner herein from service vide order dated 25.08.2016 in proceedings bearing No.KamE 235 MVS 2015. It is this order of the Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Services-I) dated 25.08.2016 which is the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No.7890/2016. The said application being heard on merits, came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2019 in confirming the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A12 dated 25.08.2016. It is this order which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for the first respondent – State and Sri K.N. Putte Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. Perused the material available on record including the findings of Enquiry Officer as well as the recommendation of the Upa Lokayuktha sent to first respondent vide order dated 19.08.2015 and also the order of the KSAT dated 17.10.2019 in this proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise his contention on several grounds. First of that is, there was no demand for collecting bribe by the petitioner - DGO and inspite of there being no demand, the money is forcibly kept in his pocket. Secondly, he was not the concerned officer to do the work of correcting revenue entries pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.79/2C. Therefore, the money which is received cannot be construed as bribe for carrying out correction in the aforesaid RTC and thirdly, on the ground that the order of recommendation passed by the Upa Lokayuktha vide Annexure-A7 is erroneous inasmuch as the said officer has exceeded his jurisdiction while sending the findings of departmental inquiry along with recommendation dated 19.08.2015 in recommending the first respondent – Government to punish the petitioner with penalty of “dismissal from service” quoting the relevant Rule under the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Therefore, the said order of recommendation even otherwise does not merit consideration, hence the said recommendation requires to be quashed relying upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8594/2012 (S-RES) in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Javarai Gowda and another. In this background, it is contended that the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent based on the recommendation of the Upa Lokayuktha which is confirmed by the Tribunal in Application No.7890/2016 is not sustainable.
8. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would counter the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner himself before the Enquiry Officer that money was kept in his pocket and he has not made any attempt to return the same and there is no resistance also by him to state that he has neither demanded nor accepted the money. On the contrary, the statement which is made by him before the Enquiry Officer would clearly indicate that since the money was offered to him, he has accepted the same and thereby, there is clear acceptance of money for doing official work. Therefore, the same cannot be now diluted by taking shelter under the order of recommendation relying upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Javarai Gowda. He would further state that the said observation of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was further clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in a latter judgment in the matter of Sri Shankarappa vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another reported in ILR 2017 Kar 5487 in holding the earlier judgment in the matter of Javarai Gowda is per incuriam.
9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, this Bench is also of the view that the judgment rendered in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Javarai Gowda, cannot be followed for more than one reason. In any event, the said judgment already being discussed by another Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Sri Shankarappa vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another and having held that the same is per incuriam, question of relying upon the said judgment does not arise. In any event, after going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that acceptance of bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, this Court is unable to understand inspite of there being acceptance on the part of the petitioner himself, how the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the guilt is not proved. In any event, the same being the subject matter of appeal in Crl.A.No.1814/2016, the merits of the same cannot be discussed at this juncture.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal passed in Application No.7890/2016 in confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 25.08.2016 does not call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA