VASANTH N NAIK S/O NARAYAN NAIK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
731-DB
of 2021
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
WAD
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARW
ST
S THE 21 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 202
26
DATED THIS
PRESENT
A
THE HON'BL
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
I
THE HON'B
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
)
WRIT PETIT
TION NO.100014 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VASANTH N. N
S/O. NARAYAN NAI
AGED ABOUT 49 YE
WORKING AS ASSI
GOVERNMENT HIGH
BACHGAON, AT & P
SIRSI TALUK, UTTA
R/AT SRI. GANESH
AT: NEELAKANI, SI
UTTARA KANNADA
NAIK
IK,
EARS,
STANT TEACHER,
HER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
POST CHIPPAGI,
ARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
, AMBAGIRI,
IRSI TALUK,
DISTRICT – 581403.
TIONER
…PETIT
EGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
MAR,ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI. G.K. HIRE
SRI. VIJAYKUM
AND:
1. THE STATE OF
REPRESENTED
PRIMARY AND
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU –
2. THE COMMISS
DEPARTMENT O
NRUPATUNGA
BENGALURU –
3. THE DEPUTY D
PUBLIC INSTRU
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
G,
560001.
IONER,
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
ROAD,
560001.
DIRECTOR OF
UCTIONS
- 2 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNA
4. THE BLOCK ED
SIRSI TLAUK,
UTTARA KANNA
ADA DISTRICT-581401.
DUCATION OFFICER
ADA DISTRICT-581401.
…RESPON
NDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V
THIS WRIT
V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
ES 226
AND 227 OF THE C
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING T
TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUG
NED ORDER DATED 27.08.2020 PAS
SED IN
APPLICATION NO.1
10422/2019 BY THE HON’BLE KARN
NATAKA
STATE ADMINIST
TRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI
VIDE
ANNEXURE – A A
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS P
PRAYED
FOR; TO PASS S
SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS H
ON’BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT
T UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST
TANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT
PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIM
MINARY
HEARING B GROUP
P THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THER
REIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: H
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASAN
NNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKAR
RNI
- 3 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BL
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
A )
The petitione
er is before the Court seeking the fo
ollowing
prayers:
i) To
27.0
No.1
Stat
Ann
pray
ii) To
ed
on
ka
de
set-aside the impugned order date
08.2020 passed in Applicatio
10422/2019 by the Hon’ble Karnatak
te Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi vid
as
exure-A and allow the Application a
yed for.
le
nd
pass such other order/s as this Hon’bl
rt deems fit under the facts an
umstances of the case.
Cou
circu
2. Heard t
the learned counsel, Sri.G.K.Hiregou
dar for
Sri.Vijaykumar, lea
arned counsel appearing for the pet
titioner,
and learned Additi
ional Government Advocate, Sri. Sh
harad V
Magadum for the re
espondents/State.
3. Facts, a
adumbrated are as follows:
The petitione
r is appointed as an Assistant Teache
r in the
second respondent
. After about 5 years, a complaint co
omes to
be registered again
nst the petitioner on 06.05.2009, that
he had
demanded illegal g
gratification for issuing cheques for su
upply of
green boards. The
complaint resulted in registration of a
a crime
- 4 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
and investigation e
ensued. The petitioner was convicted
of the
offence punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)and 13(2)
) of the
Prevention of Corru
uption Act, 1988 in terms of the order
r of the
concerned Court da
ated 12.12.2017.
4. The pet
titioner on the ground that he was co
onvicted
of the offence was
dismissed from service in terms of a
n order
dated 17.08.2019.
The learned Single Judge of this Cour
rtallows
the Criminal Appea
al against the order of conviction; in C
Criminal
Appeal No.2141/2
2017 in terms of its judgment
dated
24.09.2025 by on t
the following reasons:
“ (viii) H
No.1 was an
transaction bu
when the brib
No.2 as per th
accused No.2
establish an in
appellant to
referred to th
SCC 731], K.
Satyanarayan
Jayaraj [(201
He submitted that the appellant/accus
sed
Assistant Teacher with no role in t
ut was made a scapegoat. He contends th
be was allegedly demanded by the accus
the
hat
sed
hen
he statement of the complainant and wh
was acquitted, the prosecution failed
ndependent motive or quid pro quo for t
to
the
demand or accept bribe personally.
e judgments in Neeraj Dutta [(2023)
. Shanthamma [(2022) 4 SCC 574],
n Murthy [(2015) 10 SCC 152] and
14) 13 SCC 55] , referred supra.
He
) 4
P.
B.
7. Per
respondent su
was the link
complainant. H
who laid a d
cheques for p
that this is e
between the co
contra, the learned counsel for t
ubmitted that the appellant/accused No
k between the accused No.2 and t
the
o.1
the
o.1,
He contends that it was the accused No
demand for the bribe for processing t
payment to the complainant. He conten
the
nds
evident from the telephone conversat
omplainant and the appellant/accused No
ion
o.1.
- 5 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
He contends t
by the compla
Committee the
the complaina
Bhatkal Town
accused No.1 w
pay in the crim
question being
sympatheticall
to take advan
the prosecutio
entrusted with
30 schools. T
that the com
board and tha
paid by the ac
Rs.2,16,000/-.
conversation e
amount was p
complainant if
contends that
complainant h
Rs.1,00,000/-
contends that
doubt by the t
PW.2. Therefo
justified in con
He also subm
Court is jus
interference.
hat if this was a genuine payment paya
inant to the School Development Monitor
ere was no need for the accused to me
ant in an ice cream parlour in faraw
ble
ing
eet
way
. He contends that the presence of t
was also not warranted, if he had no role
me. He further contends that the offence
the
e to
e in
with
g blue collar crime, cannot be dealt w
y and the accused No.1 cannot be allow
ntage of technical lapses. He contends th
wed
hat
was
on has proved that the complainant w
h the work of supplying 40 school boards
to
ubt
per
ere
he prosecution also proved beyond dou
plainant was entitled to Rs.12,000/- p
t portion of the value of these boards we
ccused by depositing cheques for a sum
. He contends that the telepho
established that the cheques for the balan
prepared and would be handed over to t
of
one
nce
the
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid as bribe.
t the prosecution also proved that t
had offered to pay Rs.40,000/- instead
He
the
of
He
ond
e of
was
and accused No.1 agreed to receive.
the receipt of Rs.40,000/- is proved beyo
rap held on 06.09.2005 and the evidence
ore, he contends that the Trial Court w
nvicting the accused No.1 for the offenc
es.
rial
ant
its that the sentence awarded by the Tr
st and proper and does not warra
8. After
counsel for ac
respondent,
consideration:
considering the contentions of the learn
cused No.1 and the learned counsel for t
ned
the
the following point arises for m
my
"Whethe
accused No.1 f
13(1)(d) read
accused No.1 w
er there was sufficient evidence to conv
vict
s 7,
for the offence punishable under Sections
with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and wheth
was entitled to the benefit of doubt?"
her
9. I hav
counsel for th
learned couns
the records of
e considered the submissions of the learn
he appellant/accused No.1 as well as t
ned
the
sed
el for the respondent. I have also perus
the Trial Court and its judgment.
- 6 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
10. The
School teache
School, Hebba
no way involv
complainant fo
was also not
payment for th
were seized f
bear the sign
officer PW.8 di
at the releva
entrusted with
that the accus
cheques payab
to show that t
bribe to rele
admittedly in t
e appellant/accused No.1 was an Assista
er working at Government Higher Prima
ant
ary
atti village, Sirsi. The accused No.1 was
in
the
ved in either placing the order with t
or supply of school boards to 30 schools.
He
the
hat
not
in any way involved in processing t
he school board supplied. The cheques th
rom the custody of accused No.2 did n
nature of accused No.1. The investigat
ing
hat
was
id not seize any documents to establish th
nt point of time, the accused No.1 w
h any work relating to the complainant
or
the
ed No.1 was instrumental in drawing up t
ble to the complainant. There is also noth
ing
the accused No.1 had made a demand
ease the cheques. The cheques we
the custody of accused No.2.
for
ere
11. At t
handover the
the complainan
accused No.1
accused No.2
evident that th
for bribe or
incriminating
possession of
hands of the a
it turned pink
evidence to
from the po
sufficient to
demand for
establish tha
accused No.1
the complain
about the
complainant
bribe .
the time of trap, the complainant tried
to
ted
The
cash to the accused No.2, who instruct
nt to hand it over to the accused No.l1. T
received the money on the instructions
and placed it in his pocket. It is therefo
he accused No.1 did not make any dema
of
ore,
and
collect it. It is no doubt true that t
the
the
the
on,
currency notes were seized from t
f accused No.1 and after immersing t
accused No.1 in sodium carbonate solutio
. Therefore, though this is a clinchi
ng
red
not
show that the money was recover
ossession of accuse No.1, this is n
prove that the accused No.1 had laid
d a
bribe. There is also no evidence
at any work was either done by t
1 or was pending before him concerni
nant. This therefore, generates doub
to
the
ng
bts
the
veracity of the allegations of t
that the accused No.1 had demand
ed
12. This
about the mee
Committee, w
were present.
offering to pa
s apart, PW.8 - investigating officer, spo
eting of the School Development Monitor
where the complainant and other supplie
oke
ing
ers
ant
ard
. He also spoke about the complaina
ay Rs.1,000/- as donation for each boa
- 7 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
supplied. Unfo
seized any ma
made to proc
Monitoring Com
of PW.1/comp
its face value.
ortunately, the investigating officer has n
not
was
aterial in this regard and no attempt w
cure the evidence of School Developme
ent
nce
mmittee members. Therefore, the eviden
lainant is doubtful and cannot be taken
on
13. It is
allegedly dema
the complaina
claimed that
offered to pay
that time, c
deposited into
any bribe to a
Rs.2,16,000/-.
Rs.1,00,000/-
the allegatio
Rs.40,000/- a
there was no
pay the balan
deposed that
Rs.1,000/- for
and that corre
from the posse
that the amou
supposedly the
to pay as don
entitled to t
instead of
perspective,
proved the g
In doing so,
evidence of P
and DW.2 i
conclusion t
guilt of acc
judgment an
proper appl
circumstance
with. Hence
answered acc
s also to be noted that the accused No.1 h
had
anded Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe and expect
ted
ant
and
nt to pay Rs.52,000/-, but the complaina
he did not have that much money a
y Rs.40,000/-. It is relevant to note that
by
ady
pay
heques for Rs.2,16,000/- were alrea
o his account. The complainant did not p
ny of the accused at the time of deposit
. If the accused had demand
against the release of remaining chequ
on that complainant offered to p
s bribe makes the whole case doubtful
mention as to when the complainant wo
nce Rs.60,000/-. The fact that PW.8 h
t the complainant had agreed to p
ing
ded
es,
pay
as
uld
had
pay
school development committee as donat
esponded with the amount that was seiz
ion
zed
ession of accused No.1, gives an impress
unt was not to be treated as bribe but w
ion
was
e amount that the complainant had agre
eed
was
ation. Therefore, the accused No.1 w
the benefit of doubt. The Trial Cou
urt
his
considering the case from th
had held cursorily that the prosecuti
uilt of the accused No.1 beyond dou
the Trial Court merely extracted t
PW.1 to PW.8 and the evidence of DW
on
bt.
the
W.1
n its judgment and jumped to t
that the prosecution had proved t
the
the
used No.1. Therefore, the impugn
ed
out
d the order of sentence being witho
ication of mind to the facts a
es of the case deserves to be interfer
nd
red
e, the point for consideration
cordingly .
is
14. In
passed:
view of the above, the following order
r is
- 8 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
ORDER
1. This cri
iminal appeal is allowed.
2. The im
mpugned judgment of conviction a
nd
sed
order
by the
Uttara
No.24/
appella
3. The ap
of sentence dated 12.12.2017 pass
e Principal District and Sessions Judg
ge,
ase
Kannada, Karwar in Special Ca
/2010 is set aside in so far
ant/accused No.1 is concerned.
ppellant/accused No.1 is acquitted
ffences punishable under Sections
(d) read with Section 13(2) of t
ntion of Corruption Act, 1988 and he
ee.
as
of
7,
the
e is
the of
13(1)(
Preven
set fre
4. Any pe
ersonal or surety bonds furnished by t
ant/accused No.1 shall stand discharged.
the
appella
5. Office
is directed to forward a copy of t
ent to the Trial Court for information a
this
and
judgme
necessa
ary action. ”
(Emphasis su
upplied)
5. The pet
titioner thenchallenges the order of di
smissal
on account of con
nviction before the Tribunal. The T
Tribunal
rejects the same b
by the impugned order. In the interre
egnum,
the development is
s, as observed hereinabove, the order
passed
by the learned Sing
gle Judgeallowing the Criminal Appeal
setting
aside the order of c
conviction.
6. What is
s unmistakable in the case at hand
is that
there was no Dep
partmental Enquiry conducted again
nst the
petitioner pursuant
t to which an order of dismissal is impo
osed. It
- 9 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
was solely on the b
basis of the petitioner getting convicted
d of the
aforesaid offences
in terms of the order of conviction
of the
concerned Court d
ated 12.12.2017 in SC No.24/2010.
In that
light, if the dismiss
sal order was foundational upon the o
order of
conviction, the orde
er of conviction is no longer in subsiste
ence. If
the foundation has
s now vanished, it cannot be said th
hat the
petitioner would rem
main outside.
7. The Ape
ex Court in a plethora of judgments ob
bserves
that an employee
dismissed solely on conviction in a c
criminal
matter shall be rein
nstated on acquittal.
7.1. The Ape
ex Court in the case of UNION OF IN
NDIA v.
1
JAIPAL SINGH , o
observes as follows:
“ …. …. ….
careful consideration of the matter and t
record, including the judgment and orde
4. On a
materials on r
brought to ou
accepted that
the threshold
constitute any
constitute a b
relied upon b
reasons specif
binding preced
we are in res
the
ers
well
n at
r notice, we are of the view that it is w
an order rejecting a special leave petition
without detailed reasons therefor does n
y declaration of law by this Court
binding precedent. Per contra, the decis
not
or
ion
y the appellant is one on merits and
fically recorded therefor it operates as
dent as well. On going through the sam
spectful agreement with the view taken
for
s a
me,
in
1
(2004) 1 SCC 121
- 10 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
Ranchhodji [(1
If prosecution
the person co
department it
arise. On the
or a public s
and if after
gets acquit
department
with for hav
law obliges a
so kept out
Consequently
relied upon,
convincing
reasonablene
that part o
cannot be su
reinstated in
discharge w
proceedings
well within th
respondent fo
appellants can
which they c
respondent. T
grave error,
adverting to a
Consequently,
directed paym
hereby set asid
1996) 11 SCC 603 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 491
1] .
, which ultimately resulted in acquittal
oncerned was at the behest of or by t
of
the
may
self, perhaps different considerations m
other hand, if as a citizen the employ
servant got involved in a criminal ca
yee
ase
initial conviction by the trial court,
ttal on appeal subsequently, t
cannot in any manner be found fa
ing kept him out of service, since t
a person convicted of an offence to
t and not to be retained in servic
he
the
ult
the
be
ce.
y, the reasons given in the decisi
on
nly
, for the appellants are not on
but are in consonance w
ess as well. Though exception taken
of the order directing reinstateme
ith
to
ent
ustained and the respondent has to
be
ier
nal
service, for the reason that the earl
was on account of those crimin
and conviction only , the appellants a
heir rights to deny back wages to t
or the period he was not in service. T
nnot be made liable to pay for the period
are
the
The
for
the
d a
could not avail of the services of t
The High Court, in our view, committed
in allowing back wages also, witho
ll such relevant aspects and consideratio
out
ns.
s it
the order of the High Court insofar as
ment of back wages is liable to be and
is
de.”
7.2. The Ape
ex Court in the case of KARNATAKA
A SRTC
2
AO , observes as follows”
v. M.G. VITTAL RA
“ …. …. ….
in
Departm
criminal case
mental enquiry and acquittal
e
2
(2012) 1 SCC 442
- 11 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
11.The
after decisio
competent cr
dismissal fro
the criminal
Article 311(2
( a )] [Ed. : A
as follows:“
where a pers
in rank on th
his convictio
Constitution
statutory rul
enquiry has
proceedings, a
The law is oth
a criminal cour
being that the
enquiry and
different. In a
beyond reason
the preponder
test to be appl
question of considering reinstateme
on of acquittal or discharge by
riminal court arises only and only if t
ent
a
the
m services was based on conviction
by
court in view of the provisions
2)( b ) [ sic Article 311(2) second provi
Article 311(2) second proviso ( a ) rea
of
iso
ads
( a )
ced
[Art. 311(2)] shall not apply — (
son is dismissed or removed or reduc
he ground of conduct which has led
on on a criminal charge;”.]] of t
to
the
the
of India, or analogous provisions in t
es applicable in a case. In a case whe
been held independently of the crimi
acquittal in a criminal court is of no he
ere
nal
elp.
erwise. Even if a person stood acquitted
rt, domestic enquiry can be held, the reas
e standard of proof required in a domes
by
son
stic
that in a criminal case are altogeth
criminal case, standard of proof required
nable doubt while in a domestic enquiry it
her
d is
t is
the
rance of probabilities that constitutes t
ied.”
7.3. The Ap
pex Court in the case of SBI v. M
MOHD.
3
ABDUL RAHIM, ho
olds as follows:
“ …. …. ….
9. In
acquitted by
manner of d
relate back a
stand obliter
manner of do
that had
dismissal/dis
to exist. Th
reinstated in
performed by
the present case, the respondent w
was
the appellate court. There can be
doubt that the said acquittal wou
and the initial order of conviction wou
no
uld
uld
rated. On that basis, there can be
no
use
oubt that the substratum of the cau
led to the responden
scharge in the present case had ceas
t's
sed
he same would entitle him to
n service, an act that has been du
be
uly
y the appellant Bank .”
3
(2013) 11 SCC 67
- 12 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
(Emphasis supplied at each in
stance)
The Apex Co
urt in the afore-quoted judgments ob
bserves
that an employee
e dismissed on the score that th
ey are
convicted in crimi
inal proceedings must in the insta
ance of
subsequent acquitt
tal be reinstated. In that light, the pe
etitioner
has been reinstated
d into service.
8. The ord
der of the Tribunal at that point in tim
me was
appropriate. But to
day, the order of the Tribunal will hav
ve to be
set-aside as a mat
tter of form, as the petitioner has now
w been
reinstated into ser
rvice pursuant to the afore-quoted o
order in
the Criminal Appea
l referred to.
9. For the
aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. T
he petition is allowed .
ii. T
he impugned order dated 27.08.2020
passed
in
n Application No.10422/2019 by the
Hon’ble
K
Karnataka State Administrative Tribu
unal at
B
elagavi is set aside.
- 13 -
731-DB
of 2021
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WP No. 100014 o
CNR: KAHC0201177220
020
iii. T
he order that imposed penalty of di
smissal
u
pon the petitioner also is quashed.
iv. T
he petitioner would be entitled
to all
co
onsequential benefits that would flow
w from
th
he obliteration of the orders.
Ordered accordingly
y.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1