The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order withholding pension and DCRG. The Court held that under Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSR, the Government can withhold benefits if the misconduct case commenced during service, even if conviction occurs post-retirement.
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:46803-DB WP No. 8296 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 8296 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAVARAJ MENASHINAKAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O MALLESHAPPA, (RTD) OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, R/AT NIO.252/3, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DATED 13.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN O.A No-4666/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW AND ETC.,
NC: 2024:KHC:46803-DB WP No. 8296 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner, a retired civil servant is grieving before
the Writ Court against State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 13.03.2023 whereby his Application No. 466/2021 has been negatived. In the said Application, he had laid a challenge to the Government Order dated 05.08.2021 has permanently withheld the pension & DCRG byway of punishment in terms of Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSR.
“214(1)(J) gÀr EªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉ ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆt𠤪ÀÈwÛ G¥ÀzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß (r.¹Dgï.f) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±Á±ÀévÀªÁV vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¹ DzÉò¹zÉ.”
vehemently argues that withholding of DCRG byway of
punishment on the ground that post-retirement Petitioner is convicted & punished in a criminal case is unauthorized. In support of this, he banks upon Apex Court decision in
JYOTIRMAY RAY v THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & OTHERS,1 . Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents vehemently opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the Tribunal’s reasoning on which it has constructed it.
“After perusal of the entire materials, they goes to show that the criminal case instituted as against this applicant was while the applicant was in service itself, which is pleaded by the applicant in his application. He retired from service on 31.01.2016. The criminal case ended with the conviction of the applicant by the order of Criminal Court dated 27.11.2019. When such conviction order is passed by Criminal Court action can be taken by the department invoking Rule 14(i) of KCS(CC&A) Rules, 1957.
1 CIVIL APPEAL No.6611/2015, DATED 06.11.2023
therefore, because of the conviction order the pensionary benefits of the applicant were withheld as per the order dated 05.08.2021. it is no doubt true applicant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Appeal No.1991/2019 wherein the sentence has been suspended by way of interim relief by the Hon’ble High Court. But even if the sentence is suspended but conviction will be there which is operating against eh applicant. Therefore, at this stage the applicant cannot approach this Tribunal as the criminal appeal is still pending. After disposal of the Criminal Appeal in case if his appeal came to be allowed and the conviction order set aside by the Appellate Court then he can approach the department by making a request for release of his pensionary benefits, till then he has no such right. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant at this stage is in a premature stage and it is not maintainable. This application is liable for dismissal.”
for the Petitioner that the power to withhold pension does not extend to withholding DCRG is bit difficult to countenance. Rule 208 of KCSR in unmistakable terms includes DCRG within the idea of pension. The same reads as under:
“Pension includes a gratuity. Except where the term “pension” is used in contradistinction to “death-cum-retirement gratuity”, “pension” includes “death-cum-retirement gratuity” also.”
Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSR vests power in the Government to withhold or withdraw pension when the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct. The text of the said Rule is reproduced
“Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence .- The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.”
the Petitioner that the action of Government withholding
the DCRG falls foul of the law declared by the Apex Court in JYOTIRMAY RAY supra is difficult to agree with. In that,
what was involved was Rules 13 & 14 of the Punjab National Bank Employees’ Provident Fund Trust Rules; Rule 13 gave first lien on the contributions made by the employee to recover any loss occasioned by his culpable act. Rule 14 specified a kind of qualification/condition.
These Rules are much different from Rule 214(1)(a) or Rule 214-A of the KCSR. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that is laid down in a given fact matrix and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down, vide
QUINN v. LEATHEM ,2
2 1901 A.C. 495
language of Rule 214(1)(a) of the KCSR. In other words, the power of the Government to withhold the Pension & DCRG avails for exercise even when the employee commits the offence post-retirement. There is nothing in JYOTIRMAY RAY supra or in the text of above Rule that runs counter to our reasoning.
In the above circumstances, this Petition is dismissed costs having been made easy. Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings again if & when he succeeds in the pending criminal appeal.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the power to withhold DCRG byway of punishment for grave misconduct covers cases where conviction happens post-retirement but the case commenced during service.
Whether the Jyotirmoy Ray precedent bars withholding DCRG given the specific statutory framework under KCSR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
: 1 _CIVIL APPEAL No.6611/2015, DATED 06.11.2023_Distinguished¶33
QUINN v. LEATHEMDistinguished¶52
: 2 _1901 A.C. 495_
SHRI. BASAVARAJ MENASHINAKAI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S DIXIT
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
