The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with disciplinary action against a police constable who was acquitted in two criminal cases, holding that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not automatically invalidate departmental proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao upheld the punishment of withholding one annual increment, observing that police personnel are expected to maintain higher standards of discipline and ethical conduct.
Background
The petitioner, R.K. Biradar, was working as a Civil Police Constable at Talikote Police Station in Vijayapura district. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him after he was named as an accused in Crime Nos. 70/2016 and 163/2017.
Following an enquiry, the Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service on August 7, 2019. However, the Inspector General of Police, acting as the appellate authority, modified the punishment on November 24, 2022, to withholding one annual increment.
Biradar challenged the modified punishment before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application on July 17, 2023. He subsequently approached the High Court.
Before examining the constable's challenge, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which limits the scope of judicial review in departmental enquiries. It observed that High Courts should not re-examine evidence or interfere with disciplinary findings unless the proceedings suffer from legal infirmities.
The Bench noted that the criminal courts had acquitted Biradar by extending the benefit of doubt, rather than recording an acquittal on merits. It also distinguished the standard of proof in criminal trials from departmental enquiries, which are decided on the preponderance of probabilities.
The Court observed:
"The Petitioner herein is serving as a Civil Police Constable, and he is arrayed as accused in the aforementioned crime numbers; though it is stated that the Petitioner has been subsequently acquitted in those cases registered against him, the same is not an acquittal on merits, and it is only extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused therein. The consideration in a departmental proceeding is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the case on hand does not fall under the category of 'no evidence'."
Emphasising the standards expected from uniformed personnel, the Bench further observed:
"The Police Force is a disciplined force, and the Petitioner, as part of it, was expected to conduct himself uprightly. If police constables engage in criminal activities, it runs counter to the maintenance of law and order; Police Constables cannot be expected to engage in such conduct which amounts to indiscipline. Uniformed services require a greater degree of moral behaviour."
The Court also found that the appellate authority had already taken a lenient approach by replacing dismissal with withholding one annual increment. It held that the modified punishment was not disproportionate.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's order, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the punishment of withholding one annual increment.
Case Details
Case Title: R.K. Biradar v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 200968 of 2025 (S-KAT)
Judges: Justice Ashok S. Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao
Decision Date: October 5, 2026
