Govt accountant caught taking bribe by police, acquitted by sessions court due to 'benefit of doubt', loses job restoration case in Karnataka High Court

An accountant employed by the Karnataka State Government was caught red-handed by the police while accepting a bribe from someone for mutation of his name in the land revenue records. The Karnataka Police set a sting operation, and he took the bait.

Following a legal inquiry and investigation, he was punished and ordered compulsory retirement. However, the Sessions Court acquitted him of the criminal charges and the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) also overturned the compulsory retirement decision. The Karnataka government then appealed to the High Court against the KSAT ruling and won the case on September 25, 2025 .

The Karnataka High Court said that merely because the sessions court acquitted him in the criminal trial does not mean that he did not take the bribe. The Karnataka High Court said that the sessions court judgement clearly indicated that the acquittal of the employee who was the accused is for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal is not the honorable acquittal.

Karnataka High Court says there is a difference between honorable acquittal and acquittal on the ground of ‘benefit of doubt’.

Karnataka High Court said: “The KSAT has failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and in the criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Also read: Father and son jointly sell ancestral land for Rs 13 crore; father gets tax notice; they file appeal in ITAT Pune and win case

Gyanendra Mishra, Partner, Dentons Link Legal, said to ET Wealth Online: The employee, (Respondent No. 1), was initially working as a Village Accountant at Belavalkoppa village in 2011. A complaint was filed against him by a person to the Lokayukta Police, alleging he demanded Rs. 2,500 as gratification (bribe) for the mutation of the complainant’s name in the revenue records. A trap was organized, and the employee was reportedly caught with the bribe money of Rs. 2,500 in his shirt pocket.

The employee underwent both criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry:

1. Departmental Enquiry (Initial Penalty): A departmental enquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta (Respondent No. 2). The Enquiry Officer found the employee guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Based on this finding, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on October 21, 2020, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect on the employee.
2. Criminal Proceedings: The Sessions Court in Spl.C.No.15/2012 acquitted the employee (Respondent No. 1) of the charged offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, via a judgment dated May 6, 2021.
3. Intervention by the KSAT: Being aggrieved by the compulsory retirement order, the employee approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). The KSAT, considering the facts and evidence, allowed the employee's application and set aside the compulsory retirement order dated October 21, 2020.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and pronounced the following verdict:

1. The High Court set aside the order dated April 12, 2023, passed by the KSAT.
2. The original order dated October 21, 2020, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, was upheld.

Timeline of events

Source: Khaitan & Co.

Jeevan Ballav Panda, Partner at Khaitan & Co, says: "As per the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 25 September 2025, the employee was directed to be compulsorily retired. As of now, there does not appear to be a challenge to the said judgment before the Supreme Court."

Also read: Higher pension: For five months shortfall in service period, legal heirs of late college lecturer ordered to pay back higher pension, loses case in Madras High Court

Karnataka High Court said this

Karnataka High Court in its judgement (NC: 2025:KHC-D:13253-DB) dated September 25, 2025, said that the points that arise for their consideration in this petition are:

“1.Whether the finding recorded with regard to misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry is sustainable under law and the interference by the KSAT warrants any interference? 2. Whether the facts, charges and evidence are identical or similar in a criminal proceedings and if yes, whether the acquittal in criminal proceedings has a bearing on imposition of penalty in the departmental enquiry?’’

The undisputed facts are that the accused employee was working as an accountant in 2011. A complaint was filed against him to the Police alleging that he had demanded an amount of Rs 2,500 as gratification for mutation of a person’s name in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said complaint, a crime is registered in Crime No.16/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also read: Adult son, daughter take father to court seeking financial support for education; win case under Hindu law

The matter was taken up for investigation on November 2, 2011, wherein, a trap was set by the Police and he was caught in possession of tainted cash. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in Special Case No.15/2012 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also read: Employee fired over assault charge fights legal battle for 16 years, wins Rs 4 lakh compensation in Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Government via an order dated November 8, 2012 initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The Enquiry Officer framed the Article of Charges against him for committing misconduct as enumerated under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

The Disciplinary Authority examined witness 1 to 4, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and the delinquent Government Official (accused employee) examined himself as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.3.

Also read: Govt deducted Rs 9.23 lakh from pension of late employee; employees' legal heirs fight back, win the case in Chhattisgarh High Court

After detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report recording the finding that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs 2,500 from the complainant and he failed to offer satisfactory explanation for possession of tainted cash of Rs 2,500, thereby, is guilty of misconduct within the purview of Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the Conduct Rules and charges are proved.

The Karnataka Government received the enquiry report and issued a second show-cause notice to the employee who replied to it. The disciplinary authority examined the enquiry report, evidence on record, explanation offered by him and passed an order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement.

The Sessions Court in Spl.C.No.15/2012 vide judgment dated May 6, 2021 acquitted him for the charged offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Karnataka High Court analyses KSAT order

The Karnataka High Court said that KSAT interfered with the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement mainly on three grounds.

• Firstly, the KSAT has recorded the finding with regard to the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry and ventured to re-appreciate the evidence which in the Karnataka High Court’s considered view is impermissible unless the finding of the departmental enquiry is without following the principles of natural justice, the finding of misconduct is without any evidence, the statutory rule governing the conduct of disciplinary enquiry has not been observed, the finding of the disciplinary authority is perverse and penalty imposed is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
• The KSAT without even looking into the oral and documentary evidence in its entirety came to an incorrect conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 in its proper perspective and further that the demand and acceptance is not proved. In the Karnataka High Court’s considered view, such a finding of the KSAT was uncalled for as it would amount to the KSAT sitting as an Appellate Authority over the proceedings of departmental enquiry, which is impermissible.
• The KSAT has wrongfully recorded the finding that PW.3 has admitted that he was not present at the time of the alleged demand and acceptance of the money and further that he has not heard conversation with regard to the demand and acceptance of money. The said finding of the KSAT runs contrary to the evidence on record.

Also read: She filed criminal cases solely with the intention of harassing her husband, says Andhra Pradesh High Court and quashes Section 498A case

The Karnataka High Court said that it is the case of the employer that the complainant files a complaint with the government alleging that, to do the official favour, the employee has initially demanded Rs 4,000 and later he scaled down to Rs 2,500.

Based on such a written complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and which has been admitted by the complainant in his examination-in-chief, the PW.1 in his examination-in-chief during the enquiry clearly deposed what has been stated in the complaint at Ex.P.1 and further deposed that as per the plan, complainant-PW.1 and PW.3 entered the room and handed over Rs 2,500 as demanded by the employee.

Karnataka High Court said: “There is clear evidence with regard to the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer with regard to pre-trap procedure. PW.3, who is a pancha witness fully supported the case of the employer (govt.) that he heard the conversation of PW.1 and the employee that as per the demand of the employee, PW.1 had brought Rs 2,500 which he had handed over to the employee and he received the said amount, counted the amount with both hands and put it in his shirt pocket and immediately after the signal shown by PW.3, PW.2 and the Investigating Officer entered the room and conducted the trap proceeding by drawing the Mahazar.”

Karnataka High Court says that there is enough evidence of him accepting bribe

The Karnataka High Court said that the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 when compared with the complaint at Ex.P.1 and Mahazars drawn during pretrap 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.

Karnataka High Court 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.”

Karnataka High Court says there is a difference between honorable acquittal and acquittal on the ground of ‘benefit of doubt’

Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court

Karnataka High Court said that the KSAT has interfered with the finding of the departmental enquiry and the order of penalty on the ground that the employee has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings.

The Karnataka High Court said that in their 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.

Karnataka High Court said: “The KSAT has failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and in the criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Also read: Son applies for late father’s bank job on compassionate grounds, gets no response for years, files case, wins Rs 1 lakh, Allahabad High Court order

In the case on hand, the Karnataka High Court said that they have already recorded the finding with regard to the evidence recorded in the departmental proceedings that there is sufficient evidence to uphold the order of punishment.

The Karnataka High Court said that the aforesaid charges make it clear that the burden is on the employer to prove the misconduct of the employee and in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also read: Taxpayer deposits Rs 20 lakh in NRE bank account, skips ITR; income tax dept issues notice but he wins in Gujarat High Court for this reason

The Karnataka High Court said that by no stretch of imagination can the charges leveled against the employee in both the proceedings be termed as similar. In the departmental proceedings, the employer is required to prove the general misconduct of the employee, however, in the criminal proceedings, the charges are with regard to obtaining illegal gratification of Rs 2,500 from the complainant as a reward for doing an official act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

The Karnataka High Court said that the perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court in Spl.C.No.15/2012 clearly indicates that the acquittal of the employee who was the accused is for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal is not the honorable acquittal.

Also read: Denial of marital intimacy and alienating child amounts to mental cruelty, says Delhi High Court and grants divorce to husband

The enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court makes a clear distinction with regard to the honorable acquittal and acquittal of the accused on the ground of ‘benefit of doubt’.

The Karnataka High Court said that in the case on hand, if the judgment of the Sessions Court is read in entirety, it clearly indicates that some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, which resulted in acquittal due to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court has clearly held an honorable acquittal is distinct from an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or due to technical reasons.

Karnataka High Court said: “Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the employee that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is required to be taken note of, has no merit and accordingly, the same is rejected.”

Karnataka High Court said that considering the evidence on record they 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.

Also read: Six years after receiving arrears of salary, employees were asked to pay it back—but Supreme Court says no need, and here’s why

Karnataka High Court said: “Hence, the impugned order of the KSAT is required to be set-aside.”

Karnataka High Court judgement

Karnataka High Court said:

• ● We conclude by recording that the court or tribunal should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption. 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.
• ● 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.
• ● In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Application No.12621/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi is set-aside.

Jeevan Ballav Panda, Partner at Khaitan & Co, said to ET Wealth Online: In its judgment, the High Court while setting aside the KSAT Judgment dated 12 April 2023 upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings and held as under:

• The charges levelled against Vasanad in the criminal proceedings were distinct from those in the departmental enquiry;
• The standards of proof differ, i.e., preponderance of probabilities in disciplinary proceedings as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials;
• The KSAT has limited jurisdiction and cannot reappreciate evidence on merits, save in situations where it is expressly empowered to do so;
• The acquittal by the Sessions Court was not an honourable acquittal but merely one on technical grounds;
• Therefore, as per settled position of law reiterated by the Supreme Court, acquittal by the Sessions Court by itself would not automatically exonerate the accused from the departmental proceedings considering that the threshold of standard of proof in a criminal trial is much higher (proof beyond reasonable doubt) as compared to departmental proceedings (preponderance of probabilities); and
• The High Court declared that "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". The court positioned itself as "the last bastion of justice" with a duty to ensure that "accountability prevails over impunity" in public service. This demonstrates the strong anti-corruption of the High Court and would be applicable as a strong precedent in similarly situated matters.

Mishra from Dentons Link Legal, said that the High Court reasoned that the KSAT erred on three main grounds:

1. Re-appreciation of Evidence: The High Court found that the KSAT improperly reviewed and re-appreciated the evidence presented in the departmental enquiry, which is generally impermissible for an administrative tribunal unless specific grounds (like perversity or lack of natural justice) are met. The High Court agreed with the Enquiry Officer’s finding that the charges were proved by legally acceptable evidence, despite minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, noting the complainant (PW.1) appeared to have been "won over by the employee" during the departmental proceedings.
2. Consideration of Reply: The High Court found that the KSAT wrongly concluded that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the employee's reply to the second show-cause notice. The order imposing the penalty clearly indicated that the Disciplinary Authority had examined the report, evidence, and explanation before concluding the objections were unsatisfactory and imposing the penalty.
3. Effect of Acquittal: The KSAT erred by interfering with the penalty based on the employee’s acquittal in the criminal proceedings. The High Court emphasized the distinct standards of proof in the two proceedings: "beyond reasonable doubt" for a criminal trial versus "preponderance of probabilities" for a departmental enquiry. The High Court noted that the charges in the departmental proceedings (misconduct under service rules) and the criminal proceedings (commission of offense under the PC Act) were distinct. Furthermore, the acquittal granted by the Sessions Court was found to be due to the prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and was classified as an acquittal due to the ‘benefit of doubt,’ not an ‘honorable acquittal’.

The High Court ultimately concluded that courts and tribunals should not "lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption," which is a menace threatening the principles of democracy. In summary, the employee, Sri. Shivanagouda Vasanad, was originally directed to be compulsorily retired in 2020. Although the KSAT temporarily set aside this penalty in 2023, the High Court overturned the KSAT's decision in 2025, thereby upholding the compulsory retirement order.