The State of Karnataka Vs Srinivasa

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, SKILL DEVELOPMENT, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOODS DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 029.

¶13

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), P B NO.5329/5369 ANNEX BUILDING, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:41404-DB WP No. 31138 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRINIVASA S/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (TRAINING/PRINCIPAL GRADE-I), NOW RETIRED, GOVERNMENT ITI SRIRANGAPATNA, RESIDING AT NO.703, 3^RD CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, MYSORE 570 016.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT.M.L. SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCILES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 IN APPLICATION No. 4654/2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41404-DB WP No. 31138 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶31

The State and its officers are aggrieved by the Order dated 06.02.2025 in Application No. 4654/2024 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal' ], and the Tribunal, by this order, has directed the petitioners to release the 'Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity' to the respondent within three months.

¶32

Mr. Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate, arguing to support the petition submits that the Tribunal, despite observing that an audit was underway, has issued the afore direction; and in elaboration, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that

¶33

[i] no statutory audit was conducted of the

¶34

affairs of the Department of Industrial Training and Employment,

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41404-DB WP No. 31138 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

[ii] therefore an internal audit was directed which was underway during the pendency of the application, and

¶39

[iii] after the Tribunal's order, a Report is filed and based on such Report, the first respondent is also issued with a show cause notice with Articles of Charges appended.

¶40

Ms. Suvarna M L, the learned counsel who is on caveat for the respondent, is heard for final disposal of the petition with the learned counsel accepting that a contempt application is listed today before the Tribunal.

¶41

The petitioners rely upon circumstances that are post the impugned order and whether those circumstances must have any bearing is a matter that must be considered by the Tribunal before this Court's indulgence is sought, Therefore, leaving open all questions and observing that the petitioners are

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:41404-DB WP No. 31138 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

entitled for exclusion of the time between the date of presentation of this petition and until the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with the relevant Rules. As regards the pending contempt application for initiation of contempt proceedings, this Court is of the view that the fact that this petition is disposed of by the present order must be placed before the Tribunal for due deferment.

¶46

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

The State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri. K Ramesh

Smt.Veena B Vs State of Karnataka

Ravi Ganiger Vs the Union of India

Gopi S a Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M.R. Hiremath

Sri K H Thippeshappa Vs the State of Karnataka