Narayana Rao vs State of Karnataka and Others

The petitioner was working as a police Constable in the State Armed Reserve in the establishment of the police Department of the respondent-State. He was charge-sheeted before the Metropolitan Magistrate IV Court, Bangalore City for black-marketing Cinema tickets in a theatre called Nalanda on Bangalore-Mysore Road. Simultaneously a Departmental enquiry also was initiated against the petitioner.

The Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore City, acquitted the petitioner of the charge of committing an offence under S. 55(3)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act, 1961. However, in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charge and he came to be dismissed from service. He appealed to the higher authority and the Government and the same did not meet with success. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by Respondent-3 and confirmed in appeal and revision by respondent-2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter-alia contending that the departmental enquiry was vitiated in as much as the evidence dis-believed by the Magistrate has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner found guilty.

Sri M. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended relying upon the following passage of the author in the Services under the State (Page 335).

"But where the charge in the departmental enquiry after acquittal is identical and the evidence is the same, whether or not it would amount to circumventing the decision of a competent criminal court and whether it could be permitted is a matter of considerable importance required to be settled by the Supreme Court as there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point".

that this is a fit case in which this Court should interfere. Whatever may be the correctness of the observation of the author, the law is settled by this Court in the case of T.V. Gowda v. State of Mysore, W.P. 693 of 1970 dt. 13-12-73 FB, by a Full Bench of this Court that an acquittal in a Criminal trial is not a bar for a departmental enquiry being held and in such an enquiry the Enquiry Officer can come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by a Criminal Court. When this aspect of the law is settled, it is immaterial whether the charges were identical, whether the witnesses were common in the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial and they were also simultaneous as long as the power exercised by the Criminal Court and the Enquiry Officer under the relevant law and service Rules are distinct and separate powers conferred on them.

In this view of the matter, this petition does not merit further consideration and it is, therefore, dismissed without rule being issued.