Allowed

Sri. Lakshmi Pathy H v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2023WP/27023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired employee for an irregularity occurring four years prior to retirement, violating Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, could not be maintained; consequently, the chargesheet was quashed and the order was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet dated 04.06.2019 quashed; any withheld terminal benefits to be paid within one month.

Sri. Lakshmi Pathy H Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 27023 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. LAKSHMI PATHY H S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER TRANSPORT DIVISION KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BANGALORE R/AT NO.53 P & T COLONY 14TH B CROSS CHOLARAPALYA MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM DEPARTMENT BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

THE KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUS STAND YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560 022.

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶16

2ND FLOOR BMTC BUS STAND YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560 022

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R-1; SRI.GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 2.1.2019 (VIDE ANNEXURE-H) AND CHARGE MEMO DATED 04.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME, ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

On 30.04.2019 / 04.06.2019, a chargesheet has

¶23

been laid against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner reads as follows-

¶24

“²æÃ ºÉZï.®QëöäÃ¥Àw, »jAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÀæªÁ¸ÉÆÃzÀåªÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁAiÀiÁðUÁgÀzÀ »jAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÁVzÀÝ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁAiÀÄðUÁgÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð G¸ÀÄÛªÁj ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁAiÀiÁðUÁgÀzÀ°è EAzsÀ£À zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV r¸ÉÃ¯ï mÁåAPï RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj mÁåAPï RjÃ¢UÁV ¤UÀªÀÄ¢AzÀ

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶26

gÀÆ.2,00,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è r¸ÉÃ¯ï mÁåAPï ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤UÀªÀÄPÉÌ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶27

¤ÃªÀÅ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ°è G£ÀßvÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°èzÀÝ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀð»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¸ÀzÉ ¤UÀªÀÄPÉÌ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAmÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. rÃ¸É¯ï mÁåAPï ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ°à¸À®Ä EAzsÀ£À ±ÉÃRj¸ÀÄªÀ mÁåAPï PÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÁV vÁªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.02.2013 gÀAzÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ rÃ¸É¯ï mÁåAPï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F jÃw ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ²¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀqÀvÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1982gÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 3 (1) (i, ii, iii) ºÁUÀÆ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 3(2) C£ÀÄß G®èAX¹, PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ 1979gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 4.13 gÀ G¥À ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ (©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (L) Cr PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ 1982gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÀæªÁ¸ÉÆÃzÀåªÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ (£ÀqÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²¸ÀÄÛ) ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À

¶28

¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀrAiÀÄ°è ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¤ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀ®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÁzsÀågÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.”

¶29

2. As could be seen from the said charge, the allegation against the petitioner is pertaining to the year 2013.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was permitted

¶32

to retire on 31.05.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶33

The Karnataka State Tourism Development

¶34

Corporation (for short, ‘KSTDC’ ) has framed its own Service Rules. A copy of which is produced as Annexure-B. To the said Service Rules is appended a Board Note, which reads as follows –

¶35

“ BOARD NOTE

¶36

Sub: Service Rules of the Corporation

¶37

The Service Rules framed by the Corporation are not very exhaustive as that of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. It is proposed that wherever specific rules are not provided by the Corporation, the Karnataka Civil Service Rules shall be made applicable to all the employees of the KSTDC.

¶38

The proposal is for approval.”

¶39

In the light of this Board Note and its subsequent approval, it is clear that the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short, ‘ KCS Rules ’) are made applicable to all the employees of the KSTDC whenever

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶41

specific Rules are not provided in the Service Rules framed by the KSTDC. Admittedly, there is no Rule under the Service Rules framed by the KSTDC which provides for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee, and consequently, recourse could have only been to the provisions of the KCS Rules.

¶42

Since Rule 214 of KCS Rules specifically prohibits the employer from initiating any disciplinary proceedings in respect of an event which took place four years prior to his retirement, the proceedings which was initiated in the year 2019 on the basis of an irregularity in the year 2013, cannot obviously be maintained. Consequently, the chargesheet dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure-K) shall stand quashed .

¶43

As a result of the chargesheet, if any amounts are withheld from the terminal benefits of the petitioner, the same shall be made over to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:44240 WP No. 27023 of 2019

¶46

8. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed .

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

HNM

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri. Lakshmi Pathy H v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Lakshmi Pathy H v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kishore K B Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gopinath C N Vs State of Karnataka

Prof. H. Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

K C Umesh Vs Government of Karnataka

Dr. Salma Shaziya Vs Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences

Sri. Anup P., Vs Union of India