Karnataka High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Village Accountant in Bribery Case
Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Does Not Invalidate Departmental Actions, Rules Court
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) and upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on Sri. Shivanagouda Vasanad, a Village Accountant, for accepting a bribe. The High Court emphasized the distinct nature of criminal proceedings and departmental inquiries, highlighting that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically nullify disciplinary actions taken within a departmental framework.
The case arose when a complaint was filed against Vasanad, alleging that he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 2,500 for processing a mutation in revenue records. Despite his acquittal in the criminal case due to technical reasons and witnesses turning hostile, the departmental inquiry found him guilty based on the preponderance of probabilities.
The KSAT had previously quashed the order of compulsory retirement, drawing criticism from the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence from the departmental inquiry. The High Court reiterated that judicial review in such cases is limited to ensuring adherence to natural justice and the absence of perversity in findings.
The judgment draws a clear line between the standards of proof required in criminal trials and departmental inquiries. While criminal cases demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental proceedings operate on a preponderance of probabilities. The High Court's decision reaffirms that disciplinary actions can stand independently of the outcomes of criminal cases, particularly when the charges and evidence differ.
The High Court also underscored the societal implications of corruption, urging courts to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of public services.
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 and 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
