The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vijayakumar R

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.06.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE APPLICATION NO.6132/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND DROP THE CONTEMPT PETITION.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶32

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, is by the State – Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bengaluru, calling in question the order dated 07.06.2023 in Application No.6132/2021, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’, for short), allowing the application filed by the applicant/respondent, and quashing endorsement dated 12.10.2021 vide Annexure – A14. Further, directing the petitioner to release the withheld Death cum Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’, for short) amount of Rs.11,59,545/- along with interest as per the Government Order within a period of two months lest it shall carry penal interest at the rate of 2% from the date the amount fell due till payment.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The parties are referred to as per their

¶36

rankings before the Tribunal.

¶37

Heard Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional

¶38

Government Advocate for petitioners and Sri.Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶39

Sri.Chandrashekar L., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶40

The brief factual matrix leading to filing of

¶41

the present petition are as under:-

¶42

4.1. The applicant’s mother, Smt.Thimmakka, retired from service as a Deputy Tahsildar on 30.06.2018 and has expired on 20.11.2019. Subsequent to her retirement, she was released all the pensionary benefits except Rs.11,59,545/towards DCRG on the ground that there are some allegations of misappropriation by one Sri.M.R.Praveen, a Computer Operator working in the said office. The applicant contended before the Tribunal on behalf of deceased Smt.Thimmakka that,

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

it is the Computer Operator by name Sri.M.R.Praveen, who was responsible for incident of misappropriation, against whom, a complaint was registered by deceased Smt.Thimmakka immediately after noticing the fact of misappropriation in the audit. The said case against Sri.M.R.Praveen was pending as on the date of filing of application.

¶46

4.2. However, without holding any enquiry, the Superior Authority withheld the amount which is against Rules 214A as well as 215 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, (‘KCSR Rules’, for short). As the amount was not released, the applicant made a representation seeking to release the amount withheld out of DCRG. On the said representation, the Tahsildar in terms of the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, vide letter dated 29.03.2021, issued an endorsement dated 12.10.2021 rejecting the request of the applicant,

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

which was challenged before the Tribunal in Application No.6132 of 2021.

¶50

The Tribunal having considered the

¶51

materials placed before it, has concluded that Annexure A13, is totally misconceived; Annexure – A13 reads that Smt.Thimmakka had been involved in

¶52

the criminal case of misappropriation in Crime No.196/2016, but the crime is registered by Smt.Thimmakka in Crime No.196 of 2016 against M.R.Praveen, Computer Operator, who was working on contract basis in the Office of Nada Kacheri, Gubbi Taluk. Further, the Tribunal held that even the other contents of Annexure A13 are contrary to other materials placed on record. The materials placed on record clearly shows that there is no misappropriation by Smt.Thimmakka and it is M.R.Praveen, who is responsible for the same, who by means of counterfeit seal of the Bank created fake Bank challan and misappropriated the amount.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Having found the same in the audit report, the crime was registered against the said person, which was pending consideration.

¶56

The Tribunal has further opined that without initiating any inquiry as contemplated under law, the entire amount alleged to be misappropriated to an extent of Rs.11,59,345/- is withheld from the DCRG and should have been paid to the deceased Smt.Thimmakka upon her retirement. The action contemplated, is against the mandatory provisions of Rule 214A as well as Rule 215 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, falls short of the mandatory Rules, the action will be vitiated. The Tribunal has therefore concluded that the respondents – State authorities are required to release the DCRG amount withheld, in favour of the applicant along with appropriate interest. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, which is called in question in the present petition.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA with all vehemence submitted that, the deceased Smt.Thimmakka had consented for deduction of said amount to the Commissioner. To substantiate the same, he refers to letter dated 20.08.2016 submitted by the deceased to the Technical Assistant, Land Survey and ex-officio Deputy Director, Land Records, Tumkuru, produced along with memo dated 16.10.2025. In the circumstances, since there is a consent given by the deceased, the State is right in withholding the amount towards the amount misappropriated. This aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal and in these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity and requires to be interfered with.

¶60

We have perused the letter said to have been

¶61

written by deceased Smt.Thimmakka to the officer addressed in the letter. A reading of same would

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

clearly show that she has stated it is Sri.M.R.Praveen, a Computer Operator appointed on contract basis who was accepting the amount in cash without bringing to the notice of the office and showing the same in the Bank Remittance Ledger by means of a counterfeit seal created fake Bank challans without depositing the amount in the Bank,

¶65

is responsible for misappropriation. She has also mentioned the FIR registered against him with the Gubbi Police station. Accordingly, she has requested the officer in the said letter to recover the amount from Sri.M.R.Praveen and credit the same to the account of the Commissioner bearing savings account number 64046103075 and requested to consider her request on priority.

¶66

A reading of the letter indicates that there is no consent by the deceased Smt.Thimmakka for withholding the amount and deduction. Sri.Vikas Rojipura, is not in a position to explain anything

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41630-DB WP No. 10722 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

contrary to the said letter or make out any case which is reflected in any of the materials either placed before the Tribunal or found in the writ petition, to make out a case against deceased Smt.Thimmakka. In the presence of the pellucid materials placed before it, the Tribunal has rightly considered the same and passed the order impugned allowing the application and quashing the endorsement, issuing the directions.

¶70

We have gone through the entire order so

¶71

also the materials placed in the petition including the letter submitted along with memo dated 16.10.2025. What is reflected is that, the said Sri.M.R.Praveen is responsible for the misappropriation and a case came to be registered by deceased Smt.Thimmakka against the said person pending in Crime No.196/2016 in the Gubbi police station. In the circumstances, the endorsement is issued without complying with the procedure enshrined in Rule 214 and Rule 215 of

¶72