Karnataka HC Upholds Order Setting Aside Tourism Driver’s Dismissal Over Alleged Bribes, Citing No Direct Evidence; Retiree To Get Consequential Benefits

Respondent No. 1, a driver employed by the Tourism Department, was dismissed from service by order dated 14 February 2025 following a departmental inquiry into alleged illegal gratification connected with a scheme to provide tourist taxis to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries. The inquiry concerned three officials; Respondent No. 1 was designated DGO-3.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) set aside his dismissal, holding that the case was covered by its decisions in favour of DGO-1 and DGO-2. The State challenged the KSAT’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the State’s writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the underlying application brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the evidentiary principle that a disciplinary finding must be supported by evidence capable of establishing the alleged misconduct; suspicion or possession of documents, without evidence linking the employee to the alleged receipt of illegal gratification, is insufficient. No statutory provision or precedent was identified as the basis for that evidentiary principle in the order.

The inquiry report rested on the testimony of one witness, who admitted having no direct knowledge and not having participated in the raid. None of the candidates alleged to have paid bribes was examined. The Court therefore found no direct evidence that DGO-3 accepted illegal gratification.

The documents found with him, which he said had been given to him for photocopying, did not prove that he collected bribes or benefits. Further, he was not a member of the committee responsible for selecting candidates. The evidence was therefore not materially different from that considered in the cases of DGO-1 and DGO-2, and the KSAT’s reasoning applied equally to DGO-3.

As DGO-3 had superannuated on 31 May 2026, reinstatement was not possible; however, he remained entitled to the consequential benefits flowing from the KSAT’s decision. The State was directed to pay those benefits within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.