SRI AMEENSAB vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO.201150 OF 2026 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. AMEENSAB S/O ISMAIL TAPAL,
AGE: 68 YEARS, RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
R/O. LAXMI NAGAR, RAJENDRA MADDI,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT- 586205.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 01.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE- 01.
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
AUDIT BHAVAN PARK HOUSE ROAD,
OPP. UDYOGA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 01.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI
BENCH IN A.NO.20031/2024 DATED 23.08.2025 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.20031/2024 AS PRAYED FOR. B) PASS SUCH OTHER
INTERIM ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 23.08.2025, passed in Application
No.20031 of 2024 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, “the
Tribunal”).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition
are as follows:
A complaint has been registered against the
petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. A trap was conducted on 11.06.2010.
respondent No.2 issued articles of charge against the
petitioner on the same allegation as alleged in the
criminal case. The Special Court, after holding trial,
acquitted the petitioner from the charges, by its
judgment of acquittal dated 31.10.2013.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
3. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry
submitted enquiry report to respondent No.2, holding
that the charges levelled against the petitioner are
proved. Respondent No.2 recommended respondent
No.1 to impose the penalty of permanently
withholding of 50% of the pension payable to the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 issued second show-
cause notice to the petitioner along with the report of
the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner submitted his reply to
the second show-cause notice denying the averments
made therein. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide
order dated 17.06.2021 passed the order of
punishment by imposing penalty of permanently
withholding of 50% of pension amount. Aggrieved by
the order of punishment, the petitioner approached
the Tribunal in Application No.20031 of 2024. The
Tribunal dismissed the application by order dated
23.08.2025. Hence, this writ petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel
for the Lokayukta.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
the basis of a complaint, a case came to be
registered against the petitioner for the offences
referred above. The Enquiry Officer after conducting
enquiry submitted a report holding that the charges
levelled against the petitioner are proved. He submits
that the petitioner was acquitted in Special Case
(LOK) No.14/2011. He also submits that charge
framed against the petitioner in the criminal case and
departmental enquiry were one and the same. Even
the witnesses examined in both the cases were
same.
6. To buttress his arguments, he places reliance on the
orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.40255 of 2018, disposed of on 27.09.2019
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
and W.P.No.201367 of 2023, disposed of on
22.06.2024. He also places reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.
1
M.Tank v. The State of Gujarat . He also places
reliance on the judgment of Maharana Pratap
2
Singh v. State of Bihar and others . Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for respondents
supported the impugned order and contended that
the departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings were based on two different procedures.
In the criminal trial, case is to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, however, in a disciplinary enquiry,
the case is to be proved on the basis of principle of
preponderance of probabilities. He submits that strict
rule of evidence and procedure would not be
applicable to the departmental enquiry and the
1
(2006) 5 SCC 446
2
Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025, decided on 23.04.2025.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
degree of proof which is necessary to order a
conviction is different from that of degree of proof
necessary to record a finding of delinquency. He
submits that the Tribunal was justified in passing the
impugned order and on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
9. It is an undisputed fact that a complaint came to be
lodged against the petitioner while he was working as
a Village Accountant, alleging that he has demanded
bribe from the complainant. Based on the complaint,
police have registered an FIR against the petitioner.
Lokayukta Police, after investigation filed charge-
sheet and case was registered by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Special Case (Lok) No.14
of 2011.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
10. A c omparison of the points/charges and the
witnesses examined in both criminal case and in the
departmental enquiry are extracted as follows:
Sl.
No.
Spl.Case (Lok) No.14 of
Enquiry report
2011
1. Points : Charges:
1. Whether the prosecution
has proved that on
11.06.2010 at 2.15PM near
the compound gate of Indi
Tahasildar’s Office the
accused demanded and
accepted the amount of
Rs.15,000/- as gratification
from the complainant for
mutating his name in the
revenue records of the land
bearing Sy.No.177/3 of
Chanegaon village on the
basis of the Court orders?
2. Whether the prosecution
has proved that the
accused has committed
criminal mis-conduct by
abusing his position as the
village accountant of
Halasangi village by
obtaining the pecuniary
advantage for doing the
official favour to the
complainant?
3. What Order?
“ That, you Sri Ameenasab
Ismail Sab Tapal, the DGO,
while working as Village
Accountant at Halasangi of
Indi Taluk in Bijapur
District, the complainant
namely Sri Sudhindra
Manohara Jahagirdar of
Jhalki village approached
you on 09/03/2010
requesting for entering his
name in respect of 24 acres
12 guntas of land in
Sy.No.177/3 of Chanegao
village as per the order of
Civil Court in OS
No.92/2008 and then you
took bribe of ` 1800/- from
the complainant and again
on 09/06/2010 you again
asked for bribe of
` 15,000/- and on
11/06/2010 received
further bribe of ` 15,000/-
from the complainant to
show official favour, failing
to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to
duty, the act of which was
un-becoming of a
Government Servant and
thereby committed mis-
conduct as enumerated
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of
Karnataka Civil Service
(Conduct) Rules 1966.
2. Evidence :
PW.1-Sudhindra
Manohar Jahagirdar
PW.2-Manohar Mallappa
Jagadale
PW.3-Nanasaheb
Gourabai Nagarkar
PW.4-Chandsab Tarabi
Dhavalagi
PW.5-Rajendra Ravutappa
Kondaguli
PW.6-G.S.Jiddimani
PW.7-S.M.Patil, AE PWD
PW.8-Babulal Abdulsab
Havaldar
PW.9-Balraju B. PI
Lokayukta Police
PW.1-Sudhindra
PW.2 Sri Allabhaksh Lal
Mohammed Mujawar
PW.3 Sri.Bakaraju B.
11. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, by judgment
dated 31.10.2013, acquitted the petitioner from the
charges levelled against him. The petitioner has
produced a copy of the judgment passed in Special
Case (Lok) No.14 of 2011 vide Annexure-A15.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
12. The complainant, Sudhindra was examined as PW.1,
in both the cases. Allabhaksha Lal Mahammed
Mujawar was examined as PW.2 in the departmental
enquiry, but he was not examined in the criminal
case. Bakaraju B., was examined as PW.3 in the
departmental enquiry and he was examined as PW.9
in the criminal case.
13. In the instant case, departmental proceedings and
criminal case are based on identical and similar set of
facts and the charge in the departmental case
against the petitioner and charge before the criminal
Court are one and the same. It is true that the
nature of charge in the departmental proceedings
and the criminal case is grave. The nature of case
launched against the petitioner based on the
evidence and material collected against him during
the enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the
charge-sheet, and factors mentioned are one and the
same. On the other hand, charges, evidence and
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
witnesses and circumstances are one and the same.
In the present case, criminal and departmental
proceedings have already n oticed or granted on the
same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the
petitioner's office and recovery of articles therefrom.
14. The relevant paragraphs of judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of G.M.Tank (supra) are
extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“23. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [(1964) 5 SCR
431 : AIR 1964 SC 787] a Constitution Bench of this
Court observed: (SCR p. 444)
“If the trial of the criminal charge results in
conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound
to follow against the public servant so
convicted. Even in case of acquittal proceedings
may follow, where the acquittal is other than
honourable. ”
24. In Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra
[(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : AIR 1984
SC 626] the same question arose before this Court.
This Court, in para 6, held as under: (SCC p. 718)
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
“ 6 . The other question that remains is if the
respondents are acquitted in the criminal case
whether or not the departmental inquiry
pending against the respondents would have
to continue. This is a matter which is to be
decided by the department after considering
the nature of the findings given by the criminal
court. Normally where the accused is acquitted
honourably and completely exonerated of the
charges it would not be expedient to continue
a departmental inquiry on the very same
charges or grounds or evidence , but the fact
remains, however, that merely because the
accused is acquitted, the power of the
authority concerned to continue the
departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is
its direction [discretion] in any way fettered.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. The rulings cited by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent are:
In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah
Mazdoor Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
1067] it was argued before this Court on behalf of
the respondent Sangh that the Labour Court ought
not to have brushed aside the finding of the criminal
court which according to the learned Single Judge
“honourably” acquitted the accused workmen of the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
offence before it. The learned Judges were taken
through the judgment of the criminal court. The
Bench was of the opinion that the acquittal by the
criminal court was “honourable” as it was based on
the fact that the prosecution did not produce
sufficient material to establish its charge which was
clear from the following observations found in the
judgment of the criminal court: (SCC p. 211, para
25)
“Absolutely in the evidence on record of the
prosecution witnesses I have found nothing
against the accused persons. The prosecution
totally fails to prove the charges under
Sections 147, 353, 329 IPC.”
26. Before the learned Judges, Paul Anthony case
[(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] was
relied on in regard to the above contentions. The
learned Judges held that the decision in Paul Anthony
case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810]
would not support the respondent therein because in
Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC
(L&S) 810] the evidence led in the criminal case as
well as in the domestic enquiry was one and the
same and the criminal case having acquitted the
workmen on the very same evidence and this Court
came to the conclusion that the finding to the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
contrary on the very same evidence by the domestic
enquiry would be unjust, unfair and rather
oppressive. The Bench further held as follows:
( Krishnakali Tea Estate case [(2004) 8 SCC 200 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 1067] , SCC pp. 211-12, para 26)
“It is to be noted that in that case the
finding by the Tribunal was arrived at in an ex
parte departmental proceeding. In the case in
hand, we have noticed that before the Labour
Court the evidence led by the management was
different from that led by the prosecution in the
criminal case and the materials before the
criminal court and the Labour Court were
entirely different. Therefore, it was open to the
Labour Court to have come to an independent
conclusion dehors the finding of the criminal
court. But at this stage it should be noted that
it is not as if the Labour Court in the instant
case was totally oblivious of the proceedings
before the criminal court. The Labour Court has
in fact perused the order of the Judicial
Magistrate and the exhibits produced therein
and come to an independent conclusion that
the order of the criminal court has no bearing
on the proceedings before it; which finding of
the Labour Court, in our opinion, is justified.”
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
29. The judgment in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama
Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723] was
cited for the purpose that the High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of
the authorities holding a departmental enquiry
against a public servant, it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the
rules of natural justice are not violated.
30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on
facts and on law. In this case, the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a
departmental case against the appellant and the
charge before the criminal court are one and the
same. It is true that the nature of charge in the
departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is
grave. The nature of the case launched against the
appellant on the basis of evidence and material
collected against him during enquiry and
investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet,
factors mentioned are one and the same. In other
words, charges, evidence, witnesses and
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
circumstances are one and the same. In the present
case, criminal and departmental proceedings have
already noticed or granted on the same set of facts,
namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence,
recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating
Officer Mr.V.B.Raval and other departmental
witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the
enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement
came to the conclusion that the charges were
established against the appellant. The same
witnesses were examined in the criminal case and
the criminal court on the examination came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the
guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any
reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its
judicial pronouncement with the finding that the
charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed
that the judicial pronouncement was made after a
regular trial and on hot contest. Under these
circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and
rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in
the departmental proceedings to stand.
31 . In our opinion, such facts and evidence in
the departmental as well as criminal proceedings
were the same without there being any iota of
difference, the appellant should succeed. The
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
distinction which is usually proved between the
departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of the approach and burden of proof would
not be applicable in the instant case. Though the
finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was
found to be valid by the courts below, when
there was an honourable acquittal of the
employee during the pendency of the
proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same
requires to be taken note of and the decision in
Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999
SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold
that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to
be allowed.”
15. The disciplinary authority without adequately
considering the said aspect has passed the order
dated 17.06.2021 vide Annexure-A10. The order
passed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case referred to supra. Hence, we are of
the considered view that the Tribunal committed an
error in passing the impugned order.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10507-DB
WP No. 201150 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030029372026
16. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The impugned order dated 23.08.2025
passed in Application No.20031 of 2024 is
set aside.
iii. Application No.20031 of 2024 is hereby
allowed.
iv. The order passed by the disciplinary
authority dated 17.06.2021 vide Annexure-
A10 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Ct:pk