The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State and other government officials challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that disciplinary proceedings could not be continued against the family of a deceased government servant to recover penalties.
null
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: 2024:KHC:31124-DB WP No. 16677 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16677 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SACHIVALAYA-II, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
N. SUMA W/O LATE V. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT THE DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.9167/2005 (b) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.9167/2005 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed by the State of Karnataka and the Commissioner of Sericulture as well as the Accountant General of Karnataka against the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), dated 12.05.2017 in Application No. 9167/2005.
Late A.V. Shrinivasa Reddy who died in harness while working as the Sericulture Extension Officer.
been initiated against Sri. A.V. Shrinivasa Reddy in the year 1997. He passed away on 22.11.2000. After the death of respondent's husband, a notice was issued to the respondent on 26.07.2003 communicating a copy of enquiry report and requiring her explanation for the same. She submitted her explanations, however, the penalty of recovery for a sum of Rs.1,28,029/- from the terminal benefits payable to the family members of the deceased Government Servant was issued by the petitioners herein.
imposed after the death of the Government Servant was illegal. The Tribunal held that it was only after assessing the financial liability by taking recourse to the means known to law that the recovery could have been attempted against the respondent or the family of the deceased Government Servant. Therefore, the order dated 15.09.2003 and 19.10.2005 which were produced before the Tribunal at Annexure-A4 and Annexure-A7 were set aside. The petitioners herein were directed to refund the amount of Rs.98,000/- recovered from the retiral benefits of the employee within three months. Liberty was also reserved to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount, if so advised.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends
that the deceased Government Servant was treated as having passed away in harness and compassionate appointment was also extended to the respondent herein. It is contended that having secured all the benefits of the service of her Late husband including compassionate appointment, the respondent could not turn around and contend that the liabilities of her Late husband could not be realized from his retirement benefits which are due to her.
clear that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent's husband had passed away in the year 2000. It is only thereafter that the second show cause notice had been issued by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the Government Servant was not alive as on the date while the second show cause notice was issued. The liability probably would survive, however, it could not have been recovered by proceeding in the pending disciplinary proceedings which were as against the deceased Government Servant. Though, it was contended by the petitioners herein before the Tribunal that the Government Servant had admitted his liability, we find from Annexure -R1, which was produced along with the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal that there was no such admission in Annexure-R1.
NC: 2024:KHC:31124-DB WP No. 16677 of 2024
to law. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require interference. The writ petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed .
Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
RAK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order setting aside disciplinary recovery proceedings needs interference.
Whether the Tribunal correctly held that recovery proceedings continued against the legal representative of a deceased employee were improper.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka and Others v. Sarala M.V.Relied on¶36
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. SARALA M.V. in WP No. 32887/2004, dated 16.08.2004
State Bank of Mysore v. Saroja SrinivasanRelied on¶36
STATE BANK OF MYSORE v. SAROJA SRINIVASAN, reported in ILR 1997 KAR.2791 · Who else cites this
The State of Karnataka
The Commissioner for Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture
The Accountant General of Karnataka
N. Suma
Anu Sivaraman
G. Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
