Allowed

Sri. T. K. Thippurao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/13303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Tahasildar challenged the Tribunal's rejection of his application against post-retirement disciplinary proceedings over a 2018 bribery allegation. Holding the four-year limit under Rule 214(6) KCSR applied since suspension was revoked and he superannuated, the court quashed the departmental proceedings and directed payment of terminal benefits with penal interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; Application No.4270/2023 allowed; departmental proceedings and Lokayukta entrustment quashed; terminal benefits payable within eight weeks, else interest at 1-2% per month re

Sri. T. K. Thippurao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 13303 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T. K. THIPPURAO, S/O LATE KRISHNARAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED TAHASILDAR GRADE-1 PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISRICT, NOW R/AT SUBRAMANIAM NILAYA NEAR SRI SIDDARAMESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 537.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICES-3), M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶15

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ARE-16), KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶18

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.S R KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4; SRI. JOSEPH ANTONY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.03.2024 PASSED IN A.No-4270/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO RULE 214 AND 215 OF THE KCSR CONSEQUENTLY THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE DIRECTED TO RELEASE ALL THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER HOLDING THAT THE SAID ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS ARE LEGALLY NOT PERMISSIBLE TO BE CONTINUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶26

Petitioner, a retired Government Servant is grieving

¶27

before the Writ Court against the Service Tribunal’s order

¶28

dated 20.03.2024 whereby, his Application No.4270/2023, laying a challenge to the disciplinary proceedings has been

¶29

negatived.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to falter the impugned order contending that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings post retirement is conditioned by the prior permission of the government and that the incident cannot be beyond four years. This aspect having not been properly addressed by the Tribunal, there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court. In support of his contention, he presses into service a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.19805 of 2023 (S-KSAT) between SRI.L. SATISH KUMAR vs. STATE AND OTHERS , disposed off on 03.09.2024. This he does to demonstrate that petitioner’s suspension was revoked and he retired from service one year thereafter.

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the State Government, learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Lokayukta, oppose the petition, making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasoning of the Tribunal. The Panel Counsel adds that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner should he truthfully face the disciplinary

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶34

proceedings entrusted to his client under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. So contending, they seek dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as petitioner was issued with articles of charges on 31.07.2023, he having retired from service on 31.03.2020. Admittedly, the alleged incident of demanding & accepting a bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- for disposing of mutation proceedings favourable to the complainant took place on 06.08.2018. It is not disputed that the petitioner who was under suspension earlier secured its rescinding and had assumed charge of the office. That being the position, the Tribunal grossly erred in wrongly applying Rule 214(6) of KCS Rules.

¶36

Rule 214(6)(a) & (b) of KCSR read as under:

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶38

“ (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date: and

¶39

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-

¶40

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and

¶41

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court."

¶42

A Coordinate Bench of this Court having construed the

¶43

above provision, has held that the period of limitation is only four years reckoned from the date of incident when suspension is revoked and the civil servant is permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. In other words, the extended period under the subject provisions would not govern the issue of limitation in such a scenario.

¶44

This aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. Added to this, the petitioner has been acquitted in Spl.C.No.391/2019 vide order dated

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42683-DB WP No. 13303 of 2024

¶46

21.04.2022 handed by the Court of VII Addl. Sessions &

¶47

Special Judge at Tumakuru.

¶48

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds and impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Petitioner’s Application No.4270/2023 having been favoured, the departmental proceedings and their entrustment to the Lokayukta are hereby quashed.

¶49

A direction issues to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner within an outer limit of eight weeks. Delay if brooked would carry interest at the rate of one per cent per men sem for the first two months and two per cent for the period next following. The interest component may be recovered from the erring officials personally.

¶50

Costs made easy.

¶51

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

TSN/cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri. T. K. Thippurao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. K. Thippurao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms U Manisha Vs M/S Suma Oil Agencies

Smt.C.v. Sumana Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi C M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sheela Shenoy B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Thimmappa Vs the Managing Director

M L Purushotham Vs the State of Karnataka