Acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not automatically exonerate the employee in a departmental enquiry
Karnataka High Court Overturns KSAT's Decision, Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Corruption Case. Court reinforces distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings, setting aside tribunal's decision favoring acquitted Village Accountant.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) that had set aside the compulsory retirement of a Village Accountant, Sri Shivanagouda Vasanad, implicated in a corruption case. The High Court's decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A. Patil, reinstates the disciplinary authority's order imposing compulsory retirement on Vasanad despite his acquittal in a criminal trial.
The case originated when Vasanad, serving as a Village Accountant at Belavalkoppa, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 2,500 for processing a mutation request. He was apprehended in a trap laid by the Lokayukta Police. Although acquitted in the criminal case due to lack of evidence, the disciplinary proceedings found him guilty based on the preponderance of probabilities.
The KSAT had earlier set aside the disciplinary action, reasoning that the acquittal in the criminal case should influence the outcome of the departmental inquiry. However, the High Court emphasized the distinct standards of proof applicable in criminal and departmental proceedings. The judgment underscored that the acquittal in a criminal case, particularly one not classified as an 'honourable acquittal,' does not automatically absolve an employee in departmental matters.
The High Court criticized KSAT for overstepping its bounds by reassessing evidence from the departmental inquiry, which is beyond its purview unless there are indications of legal infirmity or violation of natural justice. The court reiterated the legal principle that disciplinary proceedings can continue independently of criminal trials, given their differing objectives and standards of evidence.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of disciplinary processes, especially in cases involving allegations of corruption, and asserts the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not automatically exonerate the delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, whereas in criminal proceedings, it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence in a departmental enquiry, which is impermissible unless specific legal infirmities are shown.
Statutory provision(s): Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
