Disposed

N v. Srinivas v the Director ( a and Hr)

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/11372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged articles of charge issued shortly before his retirement alleging misconduct causing excess family pension payments. The court held Regulation 171 permits enquiry against a retired employee within four years of retirement, declined to quash the enquiry, and directed respondents to process his pension in accordance with rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondents to proceed with enquiry and process petitioner's pension papers per rules; no quashing of charges.

N v Srinivas Vs the Director ( a and Hr) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11372 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N V SRINIVAS, S/O ALWTE G.N. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS ACCOUNTS OFFICER (INTERNAL AUDIT), BESCOM, JAYANAGARA DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DIRECTOR ( A AND HR), KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER (A AND HR), BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING DATED 20/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING HIS REPLY DATED 06/02/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the articles of charge dated 20.01.2024 issued by respondent No.1 bearing No.KAVIPRANINI/B53/B55/47027/2023-24 and consequently to drop all further proceedings against him by considering his reply dated 06.02.2024.

¶21

The petitioner contends that after serving the respondents for 35 years, he retired on 30.04.2024. Before his retirement, articles of charge was served on him on 20.01.2024 alleging negligence, misconduct of duties and financial loss to the respondents. The petitioner submitted his reply on

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶23

06.02.2024. However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the reply, consequent to which, a District Judge (now retired) was appointed as an enquiry officer and the enquiry is under way. The petitioner contends that, enquiry against him was ill motivated as he was not responsible for the acts alleged, since he reported at the concerned office only on 03.08.2018 but the allegations pertained to the year 2007 and onwards. He also contends that since he has retired from service, the respondents are not entitled to proceed against him departmentally.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and claimed that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and is implicated in the case. He contends that the pension papers of the petitioner is not likely to be processed in view of the enquiry and therefore prays that the proceedings against the petitioner be halted and suitable directions be given to process the claim of petitioner for pension and other benefits.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the petitioner had reported to duty as

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶27

an Account Officer (Internal Audit on 03.08.2018), he did not take any steps to remedy the wrong and therefore, he was also complicit in the misconduct. He contended that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and did not bring to the notice of the respondents about the mistakes committed, which resulted in payment of excess family pension to a person named Smt. Siddamma. She contends that under the service regulations of the respondents, an enquiry can be held against a retired employee within four years from the date of retirement. Therefore, she contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the enquiry proceedings initiated against him on the ground that he is innocent and on the ground that the enquiry is unwarranted.

¶28

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

It is not in dispute that, the allegation made in the Articles of Charge related to certain omission and commissions that resulted in excess family pension being paid to a person named Smt. Siddamma. The payment of family pension being a continuous affair, the petitioner who was employed in the

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶31

said section was also in a way involved. However, the extent and nature of such involvement is a matter for enquiry by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was innocent of the allegations and that the enquiry has to be dropped against him. He equally cannot contend the enquiry is ill motivated and there is no provision in law to proceed against him since he had retired from service. Regulations 171 of KPTCL Employees Service Regulations provide for conducting an enquiry against a retired person within a period of four years from the date of such retirement.

¶32

In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner to set at naught the enquiry. However, the petitioner, who had retired from service, is entitled to pension as provided under the Pension Rules but he shall not be entitled to the retirement benefits, if not already settled. It is needless to mention the enquiry shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶33

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed off ,

¶34

directing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry. The respondents shall process the pension papers of the petitioner

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:32277 WP No. 11372 of 2024

¶36

¶37

for determination of pension in accordance with rules of the

respondents.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

N v. Srinivas v the Director ( a and Hr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N v. Srinivas v the Director ( a and Hr)

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

P M Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri J Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavarajappa M Vs the State of Karnataka

S Harsha Vardhana Rao Vs Hmt Limited

Sri Nyamath Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Miss Smruthi v Vs the Registrar General