STATE OF KARNATAKA, vs SMT. CHANDRAKANTHA,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1949 OF 2026 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BBMP-2,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.





…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)

AND:

1. SMT. CHANDRAKANTHA,
W/O SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ND
R/ AT NO. 58, 2 MAIN,
NEAR AYAPPASWAMY TEMPLEM,
CHENNAMMANA KERE,
TYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 028.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.





Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


AND B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP
NO.21790/2024 DATED 17/11/2025 AND C) GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The present appeal has been filed impugning the
judgment and order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21790/2024 (S-RES).

2. For the sake of convenience, and to avoid any
confusion, the parties are referred to herein by their respective
rankings before the Writ Court .

I. Facts of the writ petitioner
3. The petitioner, Smt. Chandrakantha, was initially
appointed under the City Municipal Council and, upon the
formation of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(' BBMP' ), served as Assistant Revenue Officer, in charge of
Ward No. 64, under the Malleshwaram Sub-Division, Bengaluru.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


The disciplinary proceedings originated from a complaint lodged
by M. Shashidhar, S/o Muddaiah, who was working as a
Revenue Collector in the same office. On 29.11.2013, he
alleged before the Lokayukta Police that the petitioner had
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for payment to
members of different BBMP committees and had warned that
adverse action might follow if the amount was not paid. On the
basis of the complaint, Crime No. 64/2013 was registered for
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and a
trap was conducted on the same day, during which Rs.5,000/-
was recovered from the petitioner's table drawer. The petitioner
disputed the allegation of demand and acceptance and
maintained that no official work of the complainant was
pending before her. She also questioned the circumstances in
which the money came to be found in the drawer. The criminal
prosecution arising from the same incident proceeded in Special
C.C. No. 271/2014 before the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru (CCH-79).
By judgment dated 26.09.2018, the criminal Court acquitted
the petitioner of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


Act. The disciplinary proceedings, however, continued
independently. By order dated 21.11.2014, the State
Government initiated disciplinary proceedings and entrusted
the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta. Following the enquiry,
a report dated 29.11.2022 was submitted holding the charges
proved, and a recommendation dated 01.12.2022 was made for
imposition of a penalty. A second show-cause notice dated
31.01.2023 was thereafter issued to the petitioner along with
the enquiry report.

4. The petitioner submitted her reply dated
12.02.2024 to the second show-cause notice, relying upon her
acquittal in Special C.C. No. 271/2014 and disputing the
findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. She contended
that the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings arose
out of the same complaint, concerned the same alleged
demand and recovery of Rs.5,000/-, and substantially involved
the same witnesses and evidence. According to her, the
criminal Court had examined the evidence in detail and found
that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged
acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. She

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


specifically relied upon the findings concerning the
complainant's admission that no official work or favour was due
to him from the petitioner, the evidence of the panch witnesses
regarding the events inside the chamber, and the absence of
corroboration concerning the alleged handing over and
acceptance of the tainted notes. Despite the said reply, the
competent authority, by order dated 31.07.2024 bearing No.
NAHAE 565 MNY 2014, imposed the penalty of compulsory
retirement under the applicable provisions of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957
( 'KCS Rules' ). The petitioner received the order on
06.08.2024. Aggrieved by the penalty and the enquiry report
dated 29.11.2022, she instituted W.P. No. 21790/2024 under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. She sought
quashing of the compulsory-retirement order and the enquiry
report and also challenged the failure of the authorities to
consider the effect of the acquittal dated 26.09.2018. Her
principal contention was that the disciplinary authority had
imposed the penalty without properly examining whether the
charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in the criminal

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


case and departmental enquiry were identical or substantially
similar, notwithstanding the acquittal recorded after trial.

II. Order passed in W.P. No. 21790/2024
5. The learned Single Judge, by order dated
17.11.2025, examined the circumstances in which the
complaint was made, the trap conducted on 29.11.2013, the
departmental enquiry and the subsequent acquittal of the
petitioner in Special C.C. No. 271/2014. The Court noted that
the criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose from
the same alleged demand and recovery of Rs.5,000/-. The
judgment of the criminal Court was considered in detail,
particularly its findings concerning the complainant's evidence,
the testimony of the panch witnesses and the absence of
sufficient corroboration to establish that the petitioner had
demanded and consciously accepted the amount as illegal
gratification. The learned Single Judge also compared the
charges and witnesses in the two proceedings. In the criminal
trial, the complainant was examined as PW-1, while the panch
witnesses and the investigating officer were examined among
the other prosecution witnesses. In the departmental enquiry,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


the complainant, panch witness - T.S. Savitha, the
investigating officer Dr. Anil Kumar P.G. and shadow witness -
Jayaprakash were examined. On examining the material, the
Court found that the charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances in both proceedings were identical or
substantially similar. The Court further noticed that the criminal
Court had acquitted the petitioner after a contested trial and
that the disciplinary authority had proceeded to impose the
penalty of compulsory retirement without adequately
considering the effect of that judicial determination. The
dispute was thus considered not as a case where acquittal in a
criminal prosecution automatically nullified disciplinary action,
but as one in which the relationship between the two
proceedings and the identity of the material relied upon
required examination.

6. In reaching its conclusion, the Writ Court relied
upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.
1
Tank v. State of Gujarat ; Capt. M. Paul Anthony v.
2
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., ; S. Bhaskar Reddy v.

1
(2006) 5 SCC 446
2
(1999) 3 SCC 679

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


3
Superintendent of Police ; and Ramlal v. State of
4
Rajasthan . The Court also considered the decision in
Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar in Civil Appeal
No. 5497/2025, decided on 23.04.2025, wherein the
Supreme Court explained that, although acquittal in a criminal
case does not invariably invalidate a departmental penalty, a
different consideration arises when the charges, evidence,
witnesses and circumstances in both proceedings are identical
or substantially similar and the acquittal is not merely
technical. Applying those principles to the material before it,
the learned Single Judge held that the disciplinary authority
had not properly considered the acquittal and that the
compulsory-retirement order could not be sustained in the
circumstances of the case. The writ petition was accordingly
allowed, the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated
31.07.2024 and the enquiry report dated 29.11.2022 were set
aside, and the competent authority was directed to reinstate
the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.

3
(2015) 2 SCC 365
4
(2024) 1 SCC 175

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


III. Grounds urged in the Writ Appeal:
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2025, the State
of Karnataka preferred the present Writ Appeal, contending
that the learned Single Judge had set aside the disciplinary
penalty without adequately appreciating the distinction between
a criminal prosecution and a departmental enquiry. Respondent
No.1 that the criminal Court was required to determine guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the disciplinary authority
was entitled to assess the evidence on the standard of
preponderance of probabilities, and that acquittal in the
criminal case did not, by itself, extinguish the charge of
misconduct. They contend that the learned Single Judge relied
upon G.M. Tank ( supra ) and the subsequent decisions without
properly examining their applicability to the evidence recorded
in the present case. According to the State, the recovery of
Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner's table drawer, the evidence of
the complainant and the panch witnesses, the recovery
proceedings and the positive result of the phenolphthalein test
furnished sufficient material for the enquiry officer to record a
finding of misconduct. They further contend that the acquittal
in Special C.C. No. 271/2014 was based on the criminal

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


standard of proof and could not automatically displace the
findings in the departmental proceedings. Respondent No.1 also
challenge the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the two
proceedings involved identical or substantially similar evidence,
maintaining that the disciplinary authority was entitled to draw
its own conclusions from the material placed before it. It is
their case that, in the absence of a finding that the enquiry was
vitiated by denial of opportunity or violation of the principles of
natural justice, the enquiry report and the penalty order ought
not to have been set aside by re-appreciating the evidence.
5
Reliance is placed upon State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh ;
6
Union of India v. Gunasekaran ; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
7 8
of India ; S.R. Tewari v. Union of India ; On these
grounds, the State seeks setting aside of the order dated
17.11.2025 and restoration of the disciplinary order imposing
compulsory retirement.
8. We have heard Sri. M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the appellant/respondent.


5
(1977) 2 SCC 491
6
(2015) 2 SCC 610
7
(1995) 6 SCC 749
8
(2013) 6 SCC 602

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


9. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the records
placed before this Court and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner and the respondents, the following point
arises for our consideration:
“Whether the respondent No.1–State has
made out any ground warranting interference with
the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No. 21790/2024, particularly
when the charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances in the departmental enquiry and the
criminal proceedings are identical or substantially
similar, and whether, in such circumstances,
sustaining the findings recorded in the
departmental enquiry, notwithstanding the acquittal
of the petitioner–employee in the criminal
proceedings, would be unjust, unfair and
oppressive?”

IV. Reasons and Conclusion:
10. It is well settled that the principles governing
disciplinary proceedings are distinct from those applicable to
criminal trials. In a criminal prosecution, the burden is upon the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, the
charge of misconduct is required to be established on the basis
of preponderance of probabilities. The strict rules of evidence
applicable to criminal trials do not govern departmental
enquiries. The object of disciplinary proceedings is to determine
whether the conduct of an employee is inconsistent with the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


service rules governing the employer–employee relationship.
Therefore, the mere acquittal of an employee in a criminal case
does not, by itself, preclude the employer from initiating or
continuing disciplinary proceedings, nor does it automatically
invalidate the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority.

11. However, the aforesaid distinction cannot be
applied as an inflexible rule without regard to the nature and
circumstances of the case. A different consideration arises
where the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances
forming the basis of the departmental enquiry are identical or
substantially similar to those in the criminal proceedings. In
such a situation, the effect of the acquittal cannot be examined
merely by referring to the difference in the standard of proof
applicable to the two proceedings. The Court is required to
consider whether, in the particular circumstances, sustaining
the disciplinary findings despite the acquittal would result in an
unjust, unfair or oppressive consequence. The question is not
whether the two proceedings are governed by identical legal
standards, but whether the disciplinary findings can reasonably

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


be sustained in the light of the nature of the acquittal and the
substantial identity of the material underlying both
proceedings.

12. The aforesaid principle finds support in G.M.Tank
( supra ) wherein the Supreme Court considered the effect of an
acquittal where the departmental and criminal proceedings
substantially rested upon the same allegations and evidence.
The legal position was further considered in Ramlal v. ( supra )
and reiterated in Maharana Pratap Singh ( supra ). In
Maharana Pratap Singh , ( supra ) the Supreme Court clarified
that, although an acquittal does not automatically entitle an
employee to have the disciplinary punishment set aside, where
the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in both
proceedings are identical or substantially similar, sustaining the
findings in the disciplinary proceedings may be unjust, unfair
and oppressive. The Court has also emphasised that the
substance of the judgment of acquittal, rather than the mere
terminology employed therein, is material to the determination
of this question.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


13. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter
in the light of the aforesaid settled principles and has not
proceeded on the premise that acquittal in a criminal case
invariably nullifies disciplinary action. The learned Single Judge
examined the relationship between the two proceedings and
applied the principle governing cases in which the charges and
evidentiary foundation are identical or substantially similar. The
contention of the appellant that departmental proceedings are
governed by a different standard of proof does not, by itself,
answer the question arising for consideration. While that
distinction is legally well established, it does not dispense with
the necessity of examining the effect of the acquittal in a case
falling within the principle laid down in G.M. Tank, Ramlal and
Maharana Pratap Singh (supra). The approach adopted by
the learned Single Judge is consistent with this distinction and
does not disclose any misapplication of the governing law.

14. The principle underlying the aforesaid decisions has
also been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
9
Aejaz Hussain v. State of Karnataka and Others . The

9
W.P.No.203239/2019 (Kalaburagi Bench)

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


decisions in The Principal Secretary to Government,
10
Department of Revenue Vs. Sri. Somashekhar ,
Chandrashekhar Bhimappa Madar Vs. Karnataka
11
Lokayukta , and Sri. K. Eshwar Vs. The State of
12
Karnataka are also relevant to the consideration of the legal
position governing the relationship between disciplinary
proceedings and criminal prosecution. The consistent principle
emerging from the authorities is that the distinction between
the two proceedings must be recognised, but the distinction
cannot be invoked as a standalone answer where the facts
attract the specific principle concerning substantially identical
charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances. The learned
Single Judge has applied the law in that context, and no ground
is made out to hold that the order suffers from any error
warranting appellate interference.
15. In view of the settled legal position and the reasons
recorded by the learned Single Judge, we find no sufficient
ground to interfere with the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in
W.P. No. 21790/2024. The learned Single Judge has considered

10
W.P.No.201680/2023 (Kalaburagi Bench)
11
W.P.No.111813/2019 (Dharwad Bench)
12
W.P.No.104210/2022 (Dharwad Bench)

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50060-DB
WA No. 1949 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010566242026


the relevant legal principles and arrived at a conclusion
consistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court. The
appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of law or other
infirmity warranting interference in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered against the
appellant.

16. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER


1. The Writ Appeal is dismissed .

2. The order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21790/2024
is affirmed .

Pending I.As. stand disposed of.



Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE



BVK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3