Courts Should Not Lightly Interfere In Matter Of Misconduct Arising Out Of Corruption Charges: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court emphasized that the Courts or Tribunals should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption.

The Dharwad Bench was hearing a Writ Petition preferred by the State, challenging the Order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Belagavi.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil remarked, “… the court or tribunal should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption. Corruption is a menace that not only threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian.”

The Bench added that in the face of corruption, the Courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.

Government Advocate Girish Hiregoudar appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde, Advocates Vijay K. Naik, and Advocate Anil Kale appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Respondent was working as a Village Accountant at Belavalkoppa village in 2011. A complaint was filed against him by a person (Complainant) to the Lokayukta Police alleging that he had demanded an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as a gratification for mutation of the Complainant’s name in the revenue records. Pursuant to that, a trap was organized by the Lokayukta Police and the Respondent was allegedly caught with bribe money of Rs. 2,500/- in his shirt’s pocket.

A departmental enquiry was held by the Lokayukta and an enquiry report was submitted in 2019. The Petitioner i.e., Principal Secretary to Government based on the recommendation of the Lokayukta, passed an Order wherein the Respondent was ordered with a penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, the Respondent approached the KSAT, seeking to quash the said Order. The KSAT allowed the Application of the Respondent and set aside the Order. Challenging this, the State was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The aforesaid charges make it clear that the burden is on the employer to prove the misconduct of the employee and in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By no stretch of imagination can the charges leveled against the employee in both the proceedings be termed as similar.”

The Court noted that in the departmental proceedings, the employer is required to prove the general misconduct of the employee, however, in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to obtaining illegal gratification of Rs. 2,500/- from the Complainant as a reward for doing an official act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

“The perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court in Spl.C.No.15/2012 clearly indicates that the acquittal of the employee who was the accused is for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal is not the honorable acquittal. The enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra makes a clear distinction with regard to the honorable acquittal and acquittal of the accused on the ground of ‘benefit of doubt’, it observed.

The Court further took note of the fact that the Judgment of the Sessions Court clearly indicates that some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, which resulted in acquittal due to benefit of doubt.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held an honorable acquittal is distinct from an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or due to technical reasons. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the employee that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is required to be taken note of, has no merit and accordingly, the same is rejected”, it held.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the charges levelled against the employee are proved and the enquiry was conducted after providing sufficient opportunity to the employee.

“The KSAT ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order of the KSAT is required to be set-aside”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Order of the KSAT.

Cause Title- The Principal Secretary to Government & Anr. v. Shivanagouda Vasanad & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment