Dismissed

The State Of Karnataka v. C S Chikamath S/o Siddramayya

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/102712/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the State's writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order quashing a departmental punishment of pension withholding. The Court held the writ petition had no merit as the Tribunal's decision was legally sound.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected against the Tribunal's order quashing the punishment by withholding 5% of pension for ten years

The State Of Karnataka Vs C S Chikamath… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO.102712 OF 2024 (S-KAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL

¶9

DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL

¶11

DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,

¶12

MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶14

PLANNING PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATION

¶15

STATISTICS DEPARTMENT,

¶16

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

PETITIONERS

¶18

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

C.S. CHIKAMATH S/O. SIDDRAMAYYA, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EXECUTIVE OFFICER, R/O. NO. 43, SAI NILAYA, SILVER ARCHERED, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶23

RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN A.NO.10263/2020 AND DISMISS THE A.NO.10263/2020 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The State authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.10263/2020 rejecting challenge to order of punishment of withholding of 5% of pension for a period of ten years.

¶31

Heard Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for State authorities and Sri Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent and perused writ petition papers.

¶32

Learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent, a former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Haliyal and Deputy Director of Finance & Statistics, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2015. Subsequent to his retirement, on 06.11.2015, article of charges was issued. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority-Government issued second show cause notice dated 22.09.2017 enclosing report of the enquiry,

¶33

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶34

disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent submitted his reply dated 10.11.2017. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, the State Government passed impugned order dated 25.03.2019 withholding 5% of pension of the respondent for a period of ten years. Challenging the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No. 10263/2020 and the Tribunal under impugned order quashed order of punishment. Challenging the same, the State authorities are before this Court.

¶35

Learned Government Advocate would contend that the Tribunal erroneously only on the ground that no reasons are assigned in the second show cause notice proceeded to set aside the order of punishment. He would submit that if the Tribunal was of the opinion that no reasons are assigned in the second show cause notice, ought to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to assign reasons and proceeded further thereafter. He would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in setting aside the order of punishment instead of remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority.

¶36

Learned Government Advocate would also point out that though the respondent had urged ground that the charge

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶38

memo is barred by limitation in terms of Rule 214 (2)(b) of KCSRs, the Tribunal has held in favour of the petitioner Government authorities. Thus he prays for allowing the writ petition and to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority providing an opportunity to the disciplinary authority to assign reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and to pass order thereafter.

¶39

Per contra, Sri Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent would support the order of the Tribunal and further submits that no reasons whatsoever is assigned in the second show cause notice to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal rightly placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra and Others¹ has quashed the order of imposing punishment. Further, learned counsel would submit that Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the contention urged by the respondent that the enquiry instituted in terms of charge memo dated 06.11.2015 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs.

¶40

1 AIR 1998 SC 2713

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent would point out that respondent retired from service on 31.07.2015 and article of charges were issued on 06.11.2015 relating to an event of 2010-11 financial year. Thus, he would contend that by the time the charge memo was issued, it was more than four years. Thus he prays for dismissing the writ petition.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to:

¶44

Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal?

¶45

The answer to the above point would be ‘in the negative’ for the following reasons.

¶46

It is an admitted fact that the respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2015. It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to his retirement on 06.11.2015 article of charges were issued relating to an event of financial year 2010-11. The financial year of 2010-11 ended on 31.03.2011. By the time the article of charge was issued on 06.11.2015, the respondent had retired and the disciplinary authority could not have issued charge memo as it was barred

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶48

by limitation under Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs. Rule-214(2)(b) of KCSRs reads as follows:

¶49

“214 (2) (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment.

¶50

(i) …..

¶51

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.”

¶52

(emphasis supplied)

¶53

A reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that no departmental enquiry, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

¶54

Further, Rule 214(6)(b) makes it further clear that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charge is issued to the Government servant or pensioner.

¶55

In the instant case, the respondent, retired from service on 31.07.2015 was issued with charge memo on 06.11.2015 for an incident of 2010-11, which is more than four years from

¶56

the date of incident and the charge memo is issued in respect of an event which is more than four years prior to the date of

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶58

institution. Therefore, on the said ground also the order of punishment dated 25.03.2019 requires to be set aside.

¶59

The Tribunal has rightly quashed the order of punishment dated 25.03.2019 on the ground that the disciplinary authority has failed to assign any reason under second show cause notice dated 22.09.2017 to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent of the charges leveled against him.

¶60

Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA Rules, 1957) empowers the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the disciplinary authority on any article of charge by recording its reason for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for such disagreement. It requires the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry authority, to record reasons based on the evidence on record.

¶61

In the instant case, the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, has not assigned any reason and has also not recorded its findings based on the evidence on record.

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8045-DB WP No. 102712 of 2024

¶63

In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶64

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending applications are also disposed off.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The State Of Karnataka v. C S Chikamath S/o Siddramayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Karnataka v. C S Chikamath S/o Siddramayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Of Karnataka Vs Sri Basanagouda Shindogi So Mallangouda

The Divisional Controller,Nekrtc Vs Smt. G. Gangamma W/O Late Nagaraj Alias Nagappa Alias Gunn Nagaraj

The Divisional Controller, Vs Smt. H. S. Marekka Alias H C Marekka W/O Late H N Panduranga Alias Pandu

United Social Welfare Association Vs Smt. Pushpalatha B S

Sri Daneshwari Seva Samsthe Belagavi Vs Smt. Pushpalata B S

The Divisional Manager Vs Sunil S/O.Kadagouda Patil