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

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 offence committed.

Referring to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957, the court said, "When it comes to provisions dealing with the power to impose a penalty conferring power to impose any one or more of the wide range of penalties provided in the provisions, as found in Rule 8, then the limitation on the exercise of such power is to be read into the provisions keeping in the mind the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. Merely because statute invests the authority with the power to choose any of the several prescribed punishments, it cannot be said that the authority has the unfettered power to impose any of the prescribed punishments."

It added, "When the statute confers a wide range of choices while imposing punishment, the authority imposing punishment should exercise discretion with utmost caution. While the authority is deciding on the punishment, the doctrine of proportionality should be the background score till the exercise is completed. If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the offence alleged, then it violates the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Applying the test of doctrine of proportionality in the present facts of the case the court observed, "The main accused against whom the complaint is filed has met with the punishment of compulsory retirement. When the present petitioner whose role appears to be extremely passive in the entire episode and more particularly in a situation where there is no complaint against the petitioner, he could not have been saddled with the same punishment imposed on another delinquent employee against whom there was a complaint regarding the demand for illegal gratification of Rs.150."

It added, "In the backdrop of these facts and discussions referred above on the scope and ambit of rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957 referred above, this Court finds that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. The said punishment treats the offence committed by the present petitioner on par with the offence committed by DGO-1 despite circumstances that are glaringly different."

Further the court opined, "The involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence in comparison to the involvement of DGO-1 is significantly less. Thus, two un equals have been treated equally by imposing the same penalty. This violates the protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The court concluded by saying, "This Court is of the view that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. This Court has come to this conclusion keeping in mind the involvement of the petitioner in the entire episode discussed supra. Since the punishment imposed violates the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner, this Court would step in and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and set aside the order of penalty of compulsory retirement."

Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

Date of Order: 31st Day Of January 2022

Appearance: Advocate V M Sheelvant for petitioner

Advocate G.K.Hiregoudar for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order