Corruption Threatens Democracy & Undermines Rule Of Law, Courts Must Ensure Accountability: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts or tribunals should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption.

A division bench of Justice S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, said “Corruption is a menace that not only threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian.”

It added “In the face of corruption, the courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.”

The court made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by the state government challenging an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on Shivanagouda Vasanad who worked as a village accountant.

A complaint was filed by one Vijaykumar Hanamappa to the Lokayukta Police alleging that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2,500, as a gratification for mutation of the complainant's name in the revenue records.

Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was organised and the accused was caught with bribe money of Rs. 2,500, in his shirt pocket. A departmental enquiry was held by the respondent No.2 herein and an enquiry report was submitted on 24.10.2019. The petitioner No.1 based on the recommendation, passed an order with a penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal which set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2020.

Challenging the same, the State government argued that KSAT, without considering the difference between the scope of criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry has proceeded to allow the application merely on the ground that respondent No.1 was acquitted in the criminal case.

Further, the acquittal of respondent No.1 is merely on a technical ground and the same is not an honourable acquittal, hence, the same cannot be a basis to interfere with the order of penalty in a departmental enquiry. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence against respondent No.1 in the departmental enquiry which has not been appreciated by the KSAT.

The bench on going through the records and evidence of the witnesses said, “The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 when compared with the complaint and Mahazars drawn during pre-trap and post-trap clearly demonstrate that the employee has demanded illegal gratification from PW.1 to do the official favour, accepted the illegal gratification and that the Investigating Officer has conducted the trap procedure in accordance with law.”

It said, “There is sufficient evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the trap procedure conducted by the Investigating Officer is in accordance with law and the employer in order to prove the charges levelled against the employee has led oral and documentary evidence in the departmental proceedings, which are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the employee are proved.”

Noting that the KSAT has failed to keep in mind that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities, court said, “The evidence on record when read in its entirety, it can be fairly said that the charges levelled against the employee has been proved by the employer by leading legally acceptable evidence. The perverse finding recorded by the KSAT with regard to the appreciation of evidence is required to be interfered with in these proceedings.”

Refusing to accept the reasoning of the tribunal that the employee has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings so the punishment be set aside, the court said, “In our considered view, the KSAT has erred in recording the said finding without considering the fact that the charges levelled against the employee in the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry are distinct. Furthermore, even the evidence in both the proceedings is different.”

Further, it said that the KSAT has failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities, and in a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Allowing the petition, the bench said, “Considering the evidence on record we are of the considered view that the charges leveled against the employee are proved, the enquiry was conducted after providing sufficient opportunity to the employee. The KSAT ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order of the KSAT is required to be set-aside.”

Appearance: AGA G. K Hiregoudar for Petitioners.

Senior Advocate P. P Hegde for Advocate Vijay K Naik for R1.

Advocate Anil Kale for R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

Case Title: The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100268 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order