Writ Appeal rejected. Bench affirmed Single Judge's order that pension cannot be withheld for third-party criminal complaints absent pecuniary loss and employer-instigated proceedings under relevant service regulations.
Writ Appeal rejected; original order by Single Judge directing pension release affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13315-DB WA No. 100422 of 2023
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100422 OF 2023 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
VINAYAKA B V
APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2023.11.23 12:36:22 +0530
(BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA FOR SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVS.)
AND:
MALLIKARJUN S/O. NEELAPPA SAVANUR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O SRI KAKKAYYA NIVAS, SADASHIV NAGAR, BANNATI, KATTA MAIN ROAD, HUBLI, DHARWAD-580008
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SANTOSH B MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED MAY 31, 2023, RENDERED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.104770/2022 AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-KPTCL has called in question the correctness of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in WP No.104770/2022 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the petitioner-retired employee had challenged the order of Corporation withholding the pension, which writ petition came to be allowed directing the appellant/Corporation to settle/disburse all retirement benefits to the petitioner expeditiously.
1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) on the basis of a complaint at the instance of a complainant (third party) and not on a complaint by the employer. It is further made out from the facts that the petitioner was suspended and subsequently, however, was reinstated.
superannuation, had sought for payment of pension to which, an endorsement came to be passed on 28.06.2022, wherein the respondent/Corporation, who is the employer, sanctioned only 50% of his pension in the nature of provisional pension in terms of Regulation 172(1) of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations, 1996 (for short, ‘Regulations, 1996’) w.e.f. 1.6.2022 in light of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
endorsement sanctioning only 50% of the pension came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge, who by a detailed consideration, has upheld the contention of the petitioner and quashed the endorsement while directing the respondent/Corporation to release the pension in favour of the petitioner in its entirety.
erred in recording a finding that the pecuniary loss is required to be established for the purpose of withholding the pension. It is submitted that such restriction cannot be read into Regulation 172. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, KPTCL Corporate Office Vs. Boregowda & Another2 , wherein under similar circumstances, the Court has upheld the power under Regulation 172 for withholding of Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity as well as pension. It is further contended that the interpretation of Regulations 171 and 172 ought to be done on the basis of the said Regulations and it would not be permissible to travel beyond the plain language by importing the language of similar regulations covering an identical aspect in other establishments which are however worded differently.
2 WA No.3251/2018
power of withholding pension would be available only if there is an element of pecuniary loss in terms of Regulation 172. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in L. Narasegowda’s case supra. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Others3 and submits that the right to receive pension would constitute property and the same cannot be abridged except as sanctioned by the Regulation, as pension it relates to past service rendered. It is further contended that the judicial proceedings under Regulation 172 must refer to judicial proceedings instituted by the employer and cannot refer to proceedings instituted by third party. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is sought to be affirmed.
9. Heard both sides.
3 (2013) 12 SCC 210
(a) such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the employment, be deemed to be a proceedings under this Regulation and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service.
(b) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Board.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Board may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service.
(c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a case of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than 4 years before such institution.
(d) Deleted.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this Regulation:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13315-DB WA No. 100422 of 2023
(ii) in the case of a civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court.
Note:- Where a case of loss to the Board arising from fraud or negligence on the part of a retired employee while he was in service, comes to the knowledge of the pension sanctioning authority before his pension is actually sanctioned by that authority, and no departmental or judicial proceedings can be instituted at that stage under the proviso to this Regulation, although no direct penal recovery from pension is permissible the pension sanctioning authority can order a reduction in the amount of pension under the provisions of Regulation 218 if the service of the employee can be held to have been not thoroughly satisfactory.
which he was under suspension; but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issue of final order thereon.
Note: In the case of a retired employee entitled to pension without death-cum-retirement gratuity under the pension Regulations elected by him, the provisional pension shall not exceed three-fourths of the maximum pension admissible to him.
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under clause(1) shall be adjusted against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such employee upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension, or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.
Note: The grant of pension under this Regulations shall not prejudice the operation of Regulation 218 when final pension is to be sanctioned upon conclusion of the proceedings.
petitioner, which is also an admitted fact. The question as to whether after taking of cognizance in the criminal proceedings, judicial proceedings can be stated to have commenced in terms of Regulation 172 permitting withholding of pension requires to be considered.
in terms of law laid down by constitution bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar4 case supra, it is clear that abridging of pension must be strictly in terms of Regulations.
4 (1971) 2 SCC 330
judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee.
It is relevant to note that the endorsement withholding the pension came to be passed on 28.6.2022. As cognizance was taken only on 6.8.2022 in terms of the explanation to Regulation 172, as on the date of endorsement, there was no judicial proceeding that was pending.
in Boregowda’s case, judicial proceedings were pending as on the date of retirement and accordingly, the said authority relied upon would be of no support to the learned counsel for the appellants.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
JTR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether judicial proceedings instituted by a third party under the Prevention of Corruption Act are considered instituted under Regulation 171 for the purpose of withholding pension under Regulation 1
Whether the condition precedent of pecuniary loss caused to the Board must be satisfied to invoke the power of withholding retirement benefits under the service regulations.
Whether a writ appeal challenging an order directing the release of pension should be allowed when judicial proceedings were pending at the time of the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Narasegowda Vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation LimitedRelied on¶38
L. Narasegowda Vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, 2014 SCC Online Kar 12629 · Who else cites this
Managing Director, KPTCL Corporate Office Vs. Boregowda & AnotherDistinguished¶86
Managing Director, KPTCL Corporate Office Vs. Boregowda & Another, WA No.3251/2018
State of Jharkand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and OthersRelied on¶45
State of Jharkand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 210 · Who else cites this
Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of BiharRelied on¶75
Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
Mallikarjun
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A. Patil
Parties & counsel
