Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court

Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner. The bench added, "Since the disciplinary enquiry was initiated in the year 2002, the disciplinary authority shall pass the appropriate order of punishment within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order." Case Background: One Chandrachari, was transferred from Byadagi to Dharwad. DGO-1, H.R.Naikar, who was supposed to dispatch the service records, sat on it, expecting a bribe of Rs.150.00 for dispatching the service records. Acting on the complaint made Deputy Superintendent of Police Lokayukta, an offence was registered under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and a raid was conducted. The petitioner who happened to be with the delinquent government official (DGO -1) at the time of the raid, was also found to have Rs. 50 tainted currency. The same was hidden in his socks. This currency of Rs.50.00 was admittedly paid by DGO-1 to the petitioner. Subsequently, departmental enquiry was initiated. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that charges against both the delinquent government officials are established. Pursuant to the report dated, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 07.09.2004. The same was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 01.06.2016, rejected the challenge. Following which the petitioner approached the High Court. Petitioner's submissions: Advocate V.M.Sheelvant appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no demand for a bribe by the petitioner; even as per the contents of the charge, bribe of Rs.150/- was demanded by DGO-1 and not the petitioner. Further, he submitted that it is forthcoming from the records that Rs.50/- was paid to the petitioner by DGO-1. The demand by the petitioner for a bribe of Rs.50/- from the complainant cannot be inferred at all. Finally it was said that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the allegation against the petitioner. It was also urged that no work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner. Without a complaint against the petitioner and a demand made by the petitioner and in the absence of any illegal favour done or promised by the petitioner, he could not have been compulsorily retired from service, even if he is found with tainted money is the submission on behalf of the petitioner. Respondents opposed the plea: Advocate G.K.Hiregoudar for the respondent opposed the plea saying that the case on hand does not call for any interference by this Court considering the well-settled principles governing the scope of judicial review in a matter where the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority was based on unimpeachable evidence. Moreover, acquittal in a criminal proceeding initiated against the delinquent employee is not a ground to set aside the finding of the departmental enquiry. Court findings: Firstly, the court junked the defence of the petitioner that he has received Rs. 50 from DGO-1 as a hand loan. It observed, "The explanation that the amount was paid as a hand loan does not appeal at all. No man of ordinary prudence would believe that Rs.50 received as a hand loan should find its way to the socks worn by the loanee. In the normal and natural sequence of things, the Rs.50-00 note should have found its place either in the purse or pocket of the petitioner. Thus, the band loan theory is rightly rejected by the Tribunal." Further the court held, "The enquiry officer has returned the finding of guilty based on supporting evidence on record. The enquiry officer by following all the procedures, affording ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case has returned a verdict of guilty against the petitioner. The departmental enquiry in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities to call for interference by the High Court." Then the court referring to Apex court judgements noted that the High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed only in a situation where the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court or if it is disproportionate to the...

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags