Allowed

G C Ashok Kumar v. the Karnatraka State Ware Housing Corporation

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024WP/2259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking quashing of an order retaining retirement benefits for alleged unproven transit and storage losses. Court held enquiry was time-barred and quashed the order, directing full release of dues with interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-H; direction to release full retirement benefits within three months; 9% interest from date of retirement if not released within three months.

G C Ashok Kumar Vs the Karnatraka State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2259 OF 2024 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

G.C. ASHOK KUMAR S/O G.S. CHANDRA SHEKARAIH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 190 VIDHYA NAGARA TUMKUR 572101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KISHAN G S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO 43, PRIME ROSE ROAD BANGALORE 560025.

¶12

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

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE RETIREMENT SERVICE BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 PERCENT FROM THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING ANNEXURE - H.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged an office order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure - H) passed by the respondent holding that he is liable for the transit loss from April 2014 till May 2016 and storage loss from September 2017 and February 2018. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to release the retirement benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment.

¶20

The petitioner contends that he was employed with the respondent as a Technical Assistant on 30.08.1997 and after putting in 22 years of service, he retired on 31.10.2019. Even after four years from the date of his retirement, the respondent did not settle the retirement benefits. The petitioner therefore, submitted a formal representation dated 31.12.2021. Since the respondent did not consider the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14766/2022, which was disposed off in terms of the order dated 17.03.2023, whereby the respondent was directed to consider the representation dated 31.12.2021. The petitioner

¶21

placed a copy of the order as well as a copy of the representation dated 31.12.2021, before the respondent.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶23

However, the respondent released only a sum of Rs.4,26,330/-. The petitioner contends that there is no justification for the respondent in releasing a paltry sum and withhold a large amount of retirement benefits that too, without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner contends that he retired on 31.10.2019 and by virtue of Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the respondent could have conducted an enquiry within four years from the date of retirement and as four years had elapsed, the respondent cannot withhold any money belonging to the petitioner.

¶24

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has amended the writ petition to seek for an order to set aside an order passed by the respondent dated 13.07.2023 in terms of which, the respondent had purportedly deducted a sum of Rs.32,31,137/- being transit loss as well as storage loss.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the transit loss and also cannot be held responsible for the storage loss unless an enquiry is conducted. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent be set at naught and suitable

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶28

direction be issued to the respondent to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

¶29

The respondent has contested the writ petition by filing an elaborate statement of objections. It contended that the petitioner had worked as a Warehouse Manager at State Warehouse Bangarpet between 01.02.2013 and 31.10.2019 and was relieved. It contended that the petitioner had caused financial loss to the respondent as per Audit Report dated 30.03.2021. It contended that there was transit loss of commodities, which was not justified but were abnormal. It contended that it was the duty of the petitioner to obtain sanction order/write offs from the Food Corporation of India Authorities to justify the transit loss, which he did not and therefore, was directly responsible for the financial loss suffered by the respondent. It contended that a sum of Rs.32,31,137/was the transit/storage loss. It contended that Food Corporation of India had recovered total sum of Rs.21,56,627/- from the storage charge bills payable to the respondent. Therefore, it contended that it had recovered the loss suffered by it by deducting it from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner and released the balance sum of Rs.4,26,330/-. It

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶32

therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the release of all the retirement benefits.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the aforesaid contentions of the respondent.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶35

The fact that the petitioner retired from service of the respondent on 31.10.2019 is not in dispute. The respondent, who had adopted the Karnataka Civil Services Rules as well as Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, was bound to conduct an enquiry into any misconduct alleged against the petitioner within four years from the date of he retiring from service. If the respondent has not chosen to take any action, it has lost its right to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, the unilateral action on the part of the respondent in determining the loss suffered by it on alleged acts of misconduct, is not justified. The respondent cannot contend that it had suffered loss and therefore, it was entitled to recover it from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. In view of the

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34087 WP No. 2259 of 2024

¶37

above, the impugned order passed by the respondent deducting a sum of Rs.32,31,137/- is wholly unjustified and warrants interference.

¶38

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed . The impugned office order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure - H) passed by the respondent is quashed. The respondent is directed to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner in full within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. If the amount is not released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of payment, which shall be recovered from the officer responsible for the delay.

¶39

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending

¶40

I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶41

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶42

PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

G C Ashok Kumar v. the Karnatraka State Ware Housing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G C Ashok Kumar v. the Karnatraka State Ware Housing Corporation

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 Nagarajappa C Vs the Director

Sri.H.C. Manjunath Vs the Managing Director

Dr Monika Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataramaiah Vs Superintendent Engineer

M M Nanjappa Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Mahajana Education Society (R) Vs Sri K Shankar