Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. vs C. Nagaraju

Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. ….Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The judgment of the High Court by which the order

of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from the service was set

aside is the subject matter of this Appeal. Respondent

No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

(KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior

Engineer in the year 1997. On 21.06.2003, Additional

Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore

[1] framed a charge against the Respondent which is as

follows:

“Charge:

That you DBE Sri. C. Nagaraju, while working

as Junior Engineer (Elecl.,) at KEB, VV-1 (O&M)

South Zone, Vidyaranyapuram Circle, Mysore

during the year 1998, one Sri. K. Chandrasekhar,

Class II Electrical Contractor, Resident of

Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore, (hereinafter called as

‘Complainant’) had approached you for obtaining

electrical power supply to the house and shop of

his customer Smt. Savithramma, on 14-5-

1998, and you demanded a sum of Rs.1,250/- as

illegal gratification, and on 16-5-1998 you once

again demanded and accepted illegal gratification

of Rs.750/- as advance amount, from the

complainant for doing the said work of giving

electrical power supply, and thereby you being a

public servant failed to maintain absolute integrity

and devotion to duty and did an act which was

unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby

[2] you have committed an act of misconduct as

enumerated under Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of K.E.B.

Employees Service (Conduct) Regulation Rules,

1988.”

2. The Respondent submitted his explanation to the

charge. After conducting an inquiry, Additional Registrar

of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, who was nominated

as the Inquiry Officer, held that the charge against

Respondent No.1 was proved. The Lokayukta examined

the inquiry report and approved the findings of the

Inquiry Officer. Having regard to the serious misconduct

committed by Respondent No.1, the Lokayukta imposed

the penalty of dismissal from service under Clause VIII of

Regulation No.9 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees

(Classification, Discipline, Control and Appeal)

Regulations, 1987.

3. The final notice was issued by the Appellant seeking

an explanation from Respondent No.1 as to why the

report of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted. The

reply submitted by Respondent No.1 was considered, and

[3] by an order dated 23.03.2007, Respondent No.1 was

dismissed from service. The said order was affirmed by

the Appellant Authority on 24.06.2008. Aggrieved by the

order of dismissal from service, Respondent No.1 filed a

writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was

allowed by a learned single Judge by a judgment dated

08.09.2011. The Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant was

dismissed by the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the

judgment of the High Court, the Appellant is before this

Court.

4. It is relevant to note that Respondent No.1 was tried

by the Court of Special Judge, Mysore (hereinafter

referred to as “the Criminal Court”) for committing

offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“ the PC

Act”). He was acquitted by the Criminal Court as the

prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support

the case of the prosecution.

5. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed

the Writ Petition relying upon the judgments of this Court

[4] in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd.1 and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat.2 It

was held that the charges in the departmental inquiry

and the criminal case are the same and Respondent No.1

ought not to have been dismissed from service after he

was found not guilty by the Criminal Court. The Division

Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge

by observing that an order of dismissal from service

could not have been passed once the Respondent was

honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant

submitted that the charges framed against Respondent

No.1 in the Criminal Court and the Departmental

Inquiries were different. He submitted that the

complainant resiled from his statement and turned

hostile before the Criminal Court. He further submitted

that the evidence which was the basis of the order of

dismissal was different from the evidence before the

Criminal Court. By relying upon the judgments of this

Court, the learned counsel emphasized that an acquittal

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

[5] by a Criminal Court does not bar a departmental

proceeding. According to him, the standard of proof in a

criminal trial is different from what is required for a

departmental proceeding. Strict rules of evidence are

followed in criminal proceedings whereas preponderance

of probabilities is what is taken into consideration in a

departmental inquiry. Reliance was placed by the learned

counsel for the Appellant on the judgments of this Court

in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport

Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya3 and Ajit Kumar

Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,

Haldia.4

7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 justified

the judgments of the High Court by arguing that an order

of dismissal cannot be passed by the Appellant after he

was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court. He

stated that the essence of the charge in the criminal trial

and the departmental inquiry is the same. He supported

the judgment of the High Court by submitting that

the Departmental Authorities were bound by the

3 (1997) 2 SCC 699 4 (2005) 7 SCC 764

[6] judgment of the Criminal Court. He urged that there is

no truth in the allegation of demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification against Respondent No.1. He further

submitted that the evidence adduced in the

departmental inquiry is not sufficient for warranting the

imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.

8. Mr. Chandrasekhar who was an electrical contractor

submitted a complaint in which it was stated that he

made an application for an electrical connection in favour

of his client, Mrs. Savithri. He alleged in the complaint

that Respondent No.1 demanded a bribe of Rs.1250/- for

giving the electricity connection. After negotiation, the

amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.750/-. Unwilling to

pay the illegal gratification, Mr. Chandrasekhar lodged a

complaint before the Lokayukta Police on 15.05.1998. A

case was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the PC Act. A trap was laid and

Respondent No.1 was caught accepting the amount of

Rs.750/- from Mr. Chandrasekhar. The right hand of

Respondent No.1 was washed in Sodium Carbonate

solution and it turned into pink colour. The complainant

[7] appeared before the Inquiry Officer and deposed against

Respondent No.1 about demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification. That apart, the complainant Mr.

Chandrasekhar also gave details about the trap laid down

by the Lokayukta Police. Mr. Santhosh Kumar, Deputy

Superintendent of Police who conducted the trap was

examined as PW3. After taking into account the

evidence, the Inquiry Officer held Respondent No.1

guilty of the charge. Considering the gravity of

misconduct in demanding and accepting illegal

gratification, the Disciplinary Authority found Respondent

No.1 not fit to continue in service.

9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an

employer from exercising the power to conduct

departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules

and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and

departmental, are entirely different. They operate in

different fields and have different objectives. 5 In the

disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the

Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his

5 Ajit Kumar Nag (supra)

[8] removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case

may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the

question is whether the offences registered against him

under the PC Act are established, and if established, what

sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of

proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing

inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly

distinct and different.6

10. As the High Court set aside the order of dismissal on

the basis of the judgments of this Court in Captain M.

Paul Anthony (supra) and G.M. Tank (supra), it is

necessary to examine whether the said judgments are

applicable to the facts of this case. Simultaneous

continuance of departmental proceedings and

proceedings in a criminal case on the same set of facts

was the point considered by this Court in Captain M.

Paul Anthony’s case (supra). This Court was of the

opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings

in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is

no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental

6 State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417

[9] inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the

departmental proceedings and criminal case are based

on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the

criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a

grave nature which involves complicated questions of

law and fact. On the facts of the said case, it was found

that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings

were based on identical set of facts and the evidence

before the Criminal Court and the departmental inquiry

was the same. Further, in the said case the

departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte.

In such circumstances, this Court held that the ex parte

departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to stand

in view of the acquittal of the delinquent by the Criminal

Court on the same set of facts and evidence. The said

judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In

the present case, the prosecution witnesses turned

hostile in the criminal trial against Respondent No.1. He

was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that

the prosecution could not produce any credible evidence

to prove the charge. On the other hand, the complainant

[10] and the other witnesses appeared before the Inquiry

Officer and deposed against Respondent No.1. The

evidence available in the Departmental Inquiry is

completely different from that led by the prosecution in

criminal trial.

11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a

judgment of this Court in G.M. Tank (supra) whereby the

Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed. In

the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an

offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with

Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably

acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed

to prove the charge. Thereafter, a Departmental

Inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from

service. The order of dismissal was upheld by the High

Court. In the Appeal filed by the delinquent officer, this

Court was of the opinion that the departmental

proceedings and criminal case were based on identical

and similar set of facts. The evidence before the

Criminal Court and the departmental proceedings being

exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the

[11] employee by a Criminal Court has to be given due weight

by the Disciplinary Authority. On the basis that the

evidence in both the criminal trial and Departmental

Inquiry are the same, the order of dismissal of the

Appellant therein was set aside. As stated earlier, the

facts of this case are entirely different. The acquittal of

Respondent No.1 was due to non-availability of any

evidence before the Criminal Court. The order of

dismissal was on the basis of a report of the Inquiry

Officer before whom there was ample evidence against

Respondent No.1.

12. In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya

Chah Mazdoor Sangh 7 this Court was concerned with

the validity of the termination of the services of workmen

after acquittal by the Criminal Court. Dealing with a

situation similar to the one in this case, where the

acquittal was due to lack of evidence before criminal

court and sufficient evidence was available before the

Labour Court, this Court was of the opinion that the

7 (2004) 8 SCC 200

[12] judgment in Captain M. Paul Anthony’s case (supra)

cannot come to the rescue of the workmen.

13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf

of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the

view that interference with the order of dismissal by the

High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that the

acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a

Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The

Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of

the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the

Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced

during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental

Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of

misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of

determining whether he should be continued in service.

The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not

strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of

dismissal which is based on the evidence before the

Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is

different from the evidence available to the Criminal

[13] Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High

Court.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is

allowed.

…................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…….............................J. [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, September 16, 2019

[14]