Karnataka High Court upholds compulsory retirement of village accountant

Bengalruu: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement against a village accountant on charges of corruption citing the Apex Court view that an honourable acquittal and one based on benefit of doubt are distinct.

A division bench comprising Justices S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijayakumar A Patil set aside the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) observing that the courts and tribunals should not lightly interfere in misconduct cases involving corruption charges.

“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,” the division bench said.

The case pertains to Shivanagouda Vasanad, who was working as a village accountant at Belavalakoppa village in Badami taluk of Bagalkot district. On November 2, 2011, he was caught accepting Rs 2,500 bribe as a reward for executing a mutation entry. Vasanad faced both departmental proceedings and a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

On October 21, 2020, the state government imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement after a departmental inquiry proved the charges. Subsequently, on May 6, 2021, the special court acquitted him in the criminal case, on the grounds that some prosecution witnesses turned hostile. On his application, the KSAT on April 12, 2023, set aside the compulsory retirement order.

Moving the high court against this order, the state government contended that the KSAT’s order of acquittal was improper on two grounds; it was not an honourable acquittal and that the departmental inquiry had proved the charges.

After perusing the material, the division bench noted that the charges in the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry are distinct and by no stretch of imagination can the two charges against the employee be termed as similar.

“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 Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held an honorable acquittal is distinct from an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or due to technical reasons,” the bench said.