VENKANNA S/O RANGANNA @ RAMANA DEVAPUR vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO.202267 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
VENKANNA S/O RANGANNA
@ RAMANA DEVAPUR,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BAICHANAL NOW AT DORANALLI PANCHAYAT,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI,
R/O. POST DEVAR GONAL,
TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI- 585220.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ
DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING,
BENGALURU- 560001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
YADGIRI- 585201.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
3. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE- 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP FOR R3;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 21/07/2022 IN
APPLICATION NO.3355/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND
ST
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER BEARING NO.GRAAAPA.513.
ST
GRAPAMKA.2018, DATED 03.06.2019 OF THE 1
RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-A-12). B) ANY OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
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
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short,
‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.3355 of 2019.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as
under:
The petitioner was working as a Secretary, Gram
Panchayat, Arakera (K) Village, Yadgiri District. Smt.
Neelamma, the mother of the complainant, namely
Sri Devendrappa S/o Mallikarjun Hugar of Mylapur in
Yadgiri taluk and district was sanctioned with an
amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the construction of a
house and out of it, first installment amount of
Rs.5,000/- and second installment of Rs.7,000/- and
third installment of Rs.8,000/- had been released
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
taking Rs.500/- from the complainant every time and
further the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.2,500/-
on 14.11.2007 for release of remaining fourth
installment of Rs.10,000/- and on pleading inability
to pay the amount, reduced it to Rs.2,000/- and
received an amount of Rs.2,000/- on 21.11.2007
from the complainant failing to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty which act is
unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby,
committed misconduct as enumerated under Rule
3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules
1966.
3. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry
Officer has submitted a report stating that the
charges levelled against the petitioners are proved.
The learned Upalokayukta after considering the
evidence has accepted the said report and
recommended for imposition of penalty of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
compulsory retirement from service by order dated
27.10.2018 vide Annexure-A8.
4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of
punishment, approached the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3355 of
2019 wherein, the Tribunal, vide order dated
21.07.2022 dismissed the said application. The
petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the
Tribunal in Application No.3355 of 2019 filed this writ
petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel
for respondent No.3-Lokayukta.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charge levelled against the petitioner in a criminal
case and in the disciplinary proceedings are one and
the same and they also submit that some of the
witnesses examined in criminal cases were examined
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
in the Departmental Proceedings before the Enquiry
Officer. The Trial Court has acquitted the petitioner
vide judgment dated 04.02.2013 in S.C.No.8/2010.
He also submits that the State aggrieved by the
judgment and order of acquittal in S.C.No.8 of 2010
preferred an appeal before this Court in Criminal
Appeal No.3624 of 2013. Learned Single Judge vide
Judgment dated 12.11.2020 dismissed the appeal
filed by the State. He further submits that in an
identical matter in W.P.No.200567/2022 disposed of
on 13.10.2026, this Court has set aside the similar
order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow
the petition.
7. Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate
supported the impugned order and submits that
there is no such provision in the Circular to refund
the amount. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal
considering the entire material on record has rightly
rejected the application. He submits that the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and
proper and does not call for any interference at the
hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was
working as a Secretary in Gram Panchayath, Arakera
(K) Village. On 21.11.2007, the petitioner has
demanded a sum of Rs.2,500/- for release of fourth
installment of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has
expressed his inability to pay the amount of
Rs.2,500/- and the same was reduced to Rs.2,000/-.
It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner
has accepted an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the
complainant and a criminal case was registered
against the petitioner in Crime No.7 of 2007. Police
after investigation filed a charge sheet and the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
Special Court has registered the case as S.C.No.8 of
2010.
10. A comparative table showing 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.8 of
Departmental Enquiry
2010
1. Points : Charges:
1. Whether the prosecution
proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that, the accused
being a public servant
working as Secretary, Grama
Panchayath, Arakera
demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.2,000-00
from the complainant for
releasing the last installment
cheque of Rs.10,000-00
pertaining to Smt.
Neelamma, the mother of
the complainant for
construction of the house in
Sy. No.74 of Mylapur village
in the land to an extent of 19
guntas under Ashraya
Scheme to show official
favour in the matter of
issuing cheque to the mother
of the complainant, received
and obtained the said illegal
gratification of Rs.2,000-00
from the complainant on:
21-11-2007 as a motive or
reward for doing the above
That you, Sri. Venkoba @
Venkanna, the DGO, while
working as Secretary of
Arakera (K) Grama
Panchayathi in Yadgir taluk
and district Smt.
Neelamma, the mother of
the complainant namely Sri
Devendrappa S/o
Mallikarjun Hugar of
Mylapura in Yadgir Taluk
and District was sanctioned
with an amount
Rs.30,000/- towards
construction of house and
out of it first installment
amount of Rs.5,000/- and
second installment of
Rs.7,000/- and third
installment of Rs.8,000/-
had been released to her
taking Rs.500/- from the
complainant every time
and further you demanded
bribe of Rs.2,500/- on
14.11.2007 for release of
remaining fourth
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
said work and thereby
committed the offence
punishable U/sec.7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988?
2. Whether the prosecution
further proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, on
the above said date, time
and place the accused being
public servant has demanded
and accepted illegal
gratification of Rs.2,000-00
from the complainant
Devendrappa by corrupt or
illegal means as a motive or
reward to show official
favour to Smt. Neelamma,
the mother of the
complainant and thereby
committed the offence
punishable U/sec.13(1)(d)
R/W 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
installment of Rs.10,000/-
and on pleading inability,
reduced it to Rs.2000/- and
received said amount of
Rs.2000/- on 21.11.2007
from the complainant,
failing to maintain absolute
integrity devotion to duty
and which act is
unbecoming of a
Government Servant and
thereby committed
misconduct as enumerated
U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of
Karnataka Civil Service
(Conduct) Rules, 1966.
2. Evidence :
PW.1-Sri.Devendrappa
S/o Mallikarjun
PW.2-Sri.Bhimappa S/o
Narasappa
PW.3 Khandappa S/o
Mallanna
PW.4 Rachotiswamy S/o
Shivamurthy
PW.5 Bassamma W/o
Ramanna
PW.6 Babu Rao S/o
Shantgouda
PW.7 Maheshwargouda PI
Lokayukta
PW.8 Y.M.Md.Yusuf,
Dy.Secretary
PW.9 Somashekhar, HC
PW.1-Devendrappa
(complainant)
PW.2 Sri.Prathap Mitra (pancha
witness)
PW.3 Sri Maheshwarappa
(IO)
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
100
PW.10 CA Belamkar, Dy.SP
PW.11 Maheshwarappa
Dy.SP, CID Bangalore
11. In the present case, the criminal and departmental
proceedings are based on the same set of facts,
namely, raid conducted on the petitioner, recovery of
articles in the criminal proceedings. Complainant
Devendrappa was examined as PW.1 in the
departmental of proceedings, wherein in the criminal
case, he was examined as PW.1 and Shadow Witness
Bhimappa was examined as PW.2 in the criminal
case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
was not examined before the Enquiry Officer on the
ground that by that time, he passed away. Sri.
Maheshwarappa was examined as PW.11 in the
criminal case and before the Departmental Enquiry
he was examined as PW.3. It is contended that same
witnesses were examined in the Criminal Case. The
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
Criminal Court on examination came to a conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
13. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal
passed in Special Case No.8 of 2010, the State
preferred an appeal before the learned Single Judge
in Criminal Appeal No.3624 of 2013. The learned
Single Judge vide judgment dated 12.11.2020,
dismissed the appeal filed by the State. The learned
Single Judge while dismissing the Criminal Appeal
has taken note of Exhibit P27 i.e. the explanation
given by the accused. The learned Additional
Government Advocate is placing reliance on the
Circular and the learned Single Judge has recorded
finding in para-12 which reads as follows:
“12. As per the evidence of the prosecution,
the informant had paid ` 2,000/- to the accused
which was subsequently recovered and the
accused was trapped. These facts were proved
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
by the prosecution. Ex.P27 is the explanation
given by the accused, but in the said
explanation, the accused had not raised this
specific defence that he received the amount
from the informant for the purpose of deposing
it to the Government as per the Circular
referred to above. Nevertheless, simply because
he has not raised such defence at the initial
stage, it cannot be a ground to reject the
Circular and the defence taken by the accused.
These materials placed before the Court makes
out a probable defence for the accused and
reasonable explanation for the accused to be
found in possession of the tainted money paid
by the informant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 6
along with the Circular referred to above give
rise to a reasonable doubt in the case made out
by the prosecution.”
14. The learned Single Judge has declined to accept the
contention of the Government in the criminal appeal.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharana
1
Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and others has
held as follows:
" Issue No.2 :
46. The aforesaid discussion on the
first issue seals the fate of the
respondents. However, since arguments
were advanced in respect of this issue
too, we propose to briefly answer the
same.
47. While an acquittal in a criminal
case does not automatically entitle the
accused to have an order of setting aside
of his dismissal from public service
following disciplinary proceedings, it is
well-established that when the charges,
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances
in both the departmental inquiry and the
criminal proceedings are identical or
substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such
cases, upholding the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings would be unjust,
unfair, and oppressive. This is a position
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 890
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
settled by the decision in G. M. Tank
(supra), since reinforced by a decision of
recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 .”
16. Further, in paragraph Nos.48 and 50, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has reiterated the exposition of law laid
2
down in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and others
3
and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan , which read as
follows:
48. To assess the degree of similarity
“
between the charges, evidence,
witnesses, and circumstances in the
disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is
indeed crucial to review the materials
placed before the Court where such an
issue arises. However, we regret,
absence of the departmental file has
disabled us from looking into the same.
x x x
50. The judgment acquitting the
appellant reveals that the prosecution
“miserably failed to prove its case beyond
2
(2006) 5 SCC 446
3
(2024) 1 SCC 175
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
reasonable doubt” as both the informant
and PW-2 refused to identify the
appellant in court. This discussion
confirms that the appellant's acquittal
was based not on mere technicalities. In
Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that
terms like “benefit of doubt” or
“honourably acquitted” should not be
treated as formalities. The Court's duty is
to focus on the substance of the
judgment, rather than the terminology
used.”
17. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered all the
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Maharana Pratap Singh ( supra ).
18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charges,
evidence, witnesses and circumstances in both
departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are
identical. The disciplinary authority, without
considering the judgment rendered in the criminal
proceedings, has passed the impugned order of
punishment i.e., compulsory retirement from service,
as such, the impugned order passed by the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
disciplinary authority would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive and is contrary to the exposition of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
referred to supra.
19. There is no dispute that the strict rules of evidence
and criminal procedure would not apply to the
departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which
is necessary to order a conviction is different from
the degree of proof necessary to record the
commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to
appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is
also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law
whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on
the basis of " preponderance of probability " The
acquittal of the petitioner by the learned Sessions
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
Judge does not facto absolve delinquent from the
liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
State, when the charges, evidence, witness and
circumstances are not similar. However, when the
departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings
are identical or substantially similar, there cannot be
acquittal in one proceedings and punishment under
another proceeding.
20. This Court is in full agreement with the exposition of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of G.M. Tank, Ram Lal, and Maharana Pratap
Singh ( supra ). The said judgments cover the case
on hand and are squarely applicable to the case on
hand.
21. The disciplinary authority, without considering the
said aspect, has passed the impugned order. The
impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority
is contrary to the exposition of law referred to supra.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11552-DB
WP No. 202267 of 2022
CNR: KAHC030057842022
22. In view of the same, we are of the considered view
that the impugned orders are arbitrary and
erroneous, as such, the same are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 21.07.2022 in Application
No.3355 of 2019 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi,
is set aside. Consequently, the Application
filed by the petitioner is allowed as prayed
for.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23
Ct:pk