Sri Lingappa S/O Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI LINGAPPA S/O. SHIVAJOGAPPA HUTAGONNAVAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. RETD. JUNIORENGINEER HDMC, R/O. SHIVA KRUPA, SHARADA COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, HUKKERIKAR NAGAR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD – 580 004.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SOURAB A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, V V TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICER, D. C. COMPOUND, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶17

THE OFFICE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATION, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R4; SRI. I. K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. HDMC/20/06/PENSION/02/2023-24 DATED 16/11/2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE PENSION AND ALL OTHER PENSIONARY BENEFITS DUE TO THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE IT FELL DUE TILL ITS ACTUAL PAYMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

“A. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing no. HDMC/ 20/06/ PENSION/02/2023-24 dated 16/11/2023 passed by Respondent no.4 vide Annexure-D.

¶30

B. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release pension and all other pensionary benefits due to the Petitioner immediately with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it fell due till its actual payment, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶31

Heard Shri Sourabh A.Sondur on behalf of Shri K.L.

¶32

Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1; Shri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No3 and 4; Shri I.K. Kabbur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶37

The petitioner is an employee of the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. He retires on attaining the age of superannuation. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the service of the petitioner in the Corporation or what the Corporation has meted out to the petitioner. The petitioner is a retired employee, who was facing certain criminal proceedings on the date of his retirement. The said criminal proceedings have been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.102759 of 2025, in terms of the order dated 30.08.2025, wherein it is held as follows:

¶38

“Accused No.4 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2012 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.280 of 2000 registered by Hubballi Sub-urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 468, 201 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.1 and the petitioner herein were working as engineers in Municipal Corporation, Dharwad. Petitioner has now retired from service. The allegation against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 is that they were responsible to enable the contractor to encash fraudulent bills. Based on the complaint of the Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, FIR was registered in Crime No.280 of 2000 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against 8 accused. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were the engineers

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

working in the Corporation and accused Nos.5 to 7 were officers in the accounts department. Accused No.8 was the contractor who allegedly had encashed fraudulent bills with the help of other accused persons. He submits that proceedings as against accused No.1 has been quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009 disposed off on 30.09.2011 taking into consideration that the report of the handwriting expert would go to show that accused No.1 was not involved in the alleged fraud. He submits that even in respect of the petitioner, the report of the handwriting expert is similar. In addition to the same, petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra, learned HCGP does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She also does not dispute that the report of the handwriting expert insofar as the accused No.1 and the petitioner is similar.

¶46

This Court while allowing Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009, vide order dated 30.09.2011 which was filed by accused No.1, in Paragraph No.6 has observed as follows:

¶47

“6. Given the above facts and circumstances, the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner should unnecessarily await the out come of the trial notwithstanding the handwriting expert’s opinion which is clearly in his favour and the fact that the petitioner had retired from service even before the alleged bills were executed would demonstrate that the petitioner was not involved in the transaction and the further report of the handwriting expert to the effect that the signatures purportedly being that of the petitioner were indeed forged and not in the hand of the petitioner would be a circumstance which would support the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner being named as accused when the prosecution did not feel that no case was made out against him in respect of another set of bills challenged under similar circumstances in inexplicable.”

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the order passed by the enquiry officer dated 01.07.2010, in the disciplinary proceedings held against him and perusal of the same would go to show that as many as 7 charges were framed against the petitioner and finding is recorded that prosecution has failed to prove all the 7 charges levelled against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioner who is now said to have been retired, would not only amount to abuse of process of law, but the same would also be a futile exercise in view of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2009 quashing the impugned proceedings as against accused No.1, who was facing similar charges in the impugned criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

a. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶54

b. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.226 of 2012 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.280 of 2000 registered by Hubballi Sub-urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 468, 201 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed as against the petitioner is concerned.

¶55

c. Pending I.As. stand disposed off.”

¶56

Therefore, the only impediment that was projected by the Corporation for non-release of terminal benefits of the petitioner is no longer in subsistence.

¶57

This Court on 29.10.2025 had passed the following

¶58

order:

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

“1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking release of his terminal benefits. On the score that against the petitioner, there were departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings, pension of the petitioner on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation was not settled, although provisional pension was paid.

¶63

The proceedings against the petitionerdepartmental - have all been ended in exoneration. This is an admitted fact. Even then, pension was not paid on taking the recourse to the words “judicial proceeding” in Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The judicial proceeding pending was a criminal case, which is quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the projection of impediments for release of complete terminal benefits of the petitioner have today vanished.

¶64

The Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation has now come up with a new plea that certain civil suits are filed against the employee seeking recovery of money as there was allegation of misappropriation of funds. On the very same set of facts, one quasi-judicial proceeding and another judicial proceeding had sprung. The quasijudicial proceeding has ended in the exoneration. The judicial proceeding has ended in its quashment. Therefore, the pendency of the civil suits cannot and shall not be an impediment for release of terminal benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner has retired close to 2 years 8 months ago and has not been paid any pension. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant 2 weeks' time to the respondent-Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation to release the terminal benefits that is accrued in favour of the petitioner.

¶65

In the event the respondents have no justification to withhold today, the costs of litigation and interest on release of terminal benefits could ensue.

¶66

List the matter on 19.11.2025.”

¶67

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 Shri G.I. Gachichinamath submits that one more proceeding is

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

pending against the petitioner, wherein the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation have initiated recovery of the funds which have been allegedly embezzled by the petitioner.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner would now add that the suit is not instituted by Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and it is not instituted against the petitioner, but against the contractors, in which the petitioner is also a defendant.

¶72

Be that as it may. An employee who retires and has no blemish in his service record cannot be denied pension is a settled principle of law. The only proceeding that was projected against the petitioner, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation close to thee years ago, was the pendency of a criminal case. The said criminal case has ended in quashment by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.102759 of 2025 quoted supra . Therefore, as observed herein above, the only impediment is no longer an impediment. The petitioner becomes entitled to the grant of pension and all other terminal benefits that would flow to a regular employee.

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16029 WP No. 102228 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject writ petition directing the respondent - Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation to release all the terminal benefits that are accrued in favour of the petitioner within an outer limit of four weeks, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, as the petitioner has retired three years ago. In the event the terminal benefits are not released within four weeks, the petitioner becomes entitled to interest at 12% p.a., from the date it fell due till the date it reaches the doors of the petitioner, apart from cost of litigation at ₹50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. The interest and the cost would not become applicable, if the pension is paid within four weeks, as is directed.

¶77

In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, as a matter of form, the impugned order stands quashed.

¶78

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶79

VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Lingappa S/O Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lingappa S/O Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satheesh Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mathad Gurubasavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar Vs State Bank of India

M/S. Vistanest Ventures LLP Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Dr.K. Vijayakumar S/O K B Elisha, Vs State of Karnataka