The Karnataka High Court reiterated that the only punishment for the proved misconduct of bribe amount would be dismissal or removal from service.
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition preferred by the State authorities against the Order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) by which it modified the penalty of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement for the proved misconduct of demanding and accepting of bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar observed, “The Tribunal under impugned order committed grave error in modifying the punishment of dismissal imposed by the petitioners – State Authorities on the respondent to that of compulsory retirement. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases, for the proved misconduct of bribe amount, only punishment would be dismissal or removal from service. Unless the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that charge of demanding and accepting bribe amount could not proved, it could not have modified the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.”
The Bench also reiterated that the Court or Tribunal could interfere with the punishment or substitute punishment if it is disproportionate to the proved charge or if it shocks the conscious of the Court.
Additional Government Advocate (AGA) V. Shivareddy appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Advocates Krishnappa and Srinivasa K.R. appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent was working as a Second Division Assistant in Education Department and at the relevant point of time when he was working as Block Education Officer, a Complaint was lodged by a person (Complainant) alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 25,000/- for rectifying the mistakes in the Pre-University marks card. On the said Complaint, allegedly a trap was laid against the Respondent while receiving Rs. 20,000/- from the Complainant as bribe. On the said incident, a Departmental Inquiry was initiated by issuance of Articles of Charge and simultaneously, a chargesheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Also read – Pranav Kumar moves from Pune Plant to Tata Motors Jamshedpur plant as Head of HR
The Karnataka Lokayukta on completion of the enquiry, submitted a report along with recommendation of the Upa Lokayukta to the State Government. The State then issued a second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report as well as recommendation of Upa Lokayukta to the Respondent. Thereafter, the State imposed the penalty of dismissal in exercise of its power under Rule 8(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (CCA Rules). Questioning this, the Respondent approached the Tribunal and it modified the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. Resultantly, the State authorities were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Tribunal is not justified in modifying the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement.”
The Court said that the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry would stand on a different footing and the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings would be strict rule of evidence, whereas in departmental proceedings, the charge could be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
“This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority and would not examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. This Court would only examine whether there is some evidence to prove the charge”, it further remarked.
The Court added that the Tribunal did not come to the conclusion that the charge has not been proved in the departmental enquiry.
“Unless the Tribunal records a finding that the punishment is disproportionate to the proved charge or records a finding that punishment or penalty shocks the conscious of the Court, the Tribunal would not get jurisdiction to modify or to substitute the punishment”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Tribunal’s Order.
Cause Title- The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. A.S. Prabhu
Source : verdictum
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
