Sri B Somesh Bairy Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH ANNEXURE-J DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT WHICH WAS ENDORSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2 BEARING NO. BWSSB/CHA (K P AND P)/EST03/251/2023-24 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.BWSSB/CHA (K, P & P)/EST-03/251/2023-24 dated 16.12.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 refusing to release the with-held pension. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay all the service benefits which he is entitled to. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay the monthly pension.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶26

The petitioner was appointed by the first respondent as a Junior Assistant on 01.09.1978 and thereafter was promoted as a Senior Assistant and that he worked till 31.08.2012 when he superannuated from service. He contends that the respondents had issued a charge-memo alleging certain misconduct and an enquiry officer was appointed who was required to complete the enquiry within three months. The report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted on 12.09.2012 holding that all the charges against the petitioner was proved. A second show-

¶27

cause notice was issued on 05.10.2012, which was replied on 05.11.2012, following which, the Respondent No.1 passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service on 20.03.2013, which was communicated to the petitioner, in terms of the official memorandum dated 03.06.2013. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.27088 of 2014 and the said writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside and the case was remitted back to the second respondent to consider the enquiry report along with the reply submitted

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶29

by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he placed a

¶30

copy of the order in W.P.No.27088 of 2014 before the respondents on 10.01.2022 and requested the respondents to release the pensionary benefits. The respondents, in terms of an order dated 03.06.2022 granted provisional pension. The petitioner contends that apart from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the respondents had lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police who after investigation had filed a charge-sheet, and cognizance of the offences alleged was taken in C.C.No.88 of 2010. After a trial, the Court had convicted the petitioner in terms of an order dated 17.02.2023, which was challenged in Crl.Appeal No.23 of 2023 and the same is stayed by this Court on 21.03.2023. The petitioner contends, from the date of his conviction, the respondents have stopped the monthly pension payable to him. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.03.2023 bringing to the notice of

¶31

the respondents about the stay of the judgment of conviction. Since the respondents did not consider the

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶33

representation, a notice was caused to the respondents seeking payment of all benefits. Though the notice was served, the respondents did not respond. The petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.No. 12167 of 2023 and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to consider the representation within eight weeks. Even then, the respondents did not consider the representation, which compelled the petitioner to file C.C.C.No.1203 of 2023. During the pendency of criminal contempt proceedings, the Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated

¶34

16.12.2023 refusing to release the with-held pension. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said endorsement has approached this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27088 of

¶36

2014 (S-DE) had set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service and directed the respondents to consider the

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶38

enquiry report along with the reply submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate decision in the matter. It appears that the respondents have not taken any decision thereafter from the year 2021 till date. The respondents, taking note of the conviction of the petitioner in C.C.No.88 of 2010 have refused to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner. He therefore contends that the impugned order refusing to release the with-held pension is liable to be interfered with.

¶39

The petition is opposed by the respondents who have filed a detailed statement of objections, interalia contending that the petitioner was accused of misappropriating a sum of Rs.54,36,571/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy One only) and that the enquiry conducted against him disclosed that the charges of misappropriation were proved. He also contends that the petitioner was convicted

¶40

for the offences in C.C.No.88 of 2010, which was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.23 of 2023 and

¶41

7 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶43

the same is pending adjudication before this Court. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for release of pension. It is also contended that the respondents are entitled to with-hold the pension, in view of Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the

¶45

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶46

It appears that this Court had quashed the order of the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service and had directed the disciplinary authority to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice as well as the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. This order was passed by this Court in the year 2021 and till date, the respondents have not taken any decision in that regard. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be directed to pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of a

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16014 WP No. 7593 of 2024

¶48

copy of this order. If the respondents are entitled to withhold the pension, in view of the conviction of the petitioner in C.C.No.88 of 2010, the respondents may suitably inform the petitioner about the same.

¶49

The Writ Petition, therefore stands disposed of , on the above terms.

¶50

It is made clear that if the respondents do not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice, in light of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, then the charges framed against the petitioner are deemed to have been dropped.

¶51

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶52

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶53

DH

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri B Somesh Bairy v. the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Somesh Bairy v. the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

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

G.M.Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Surendra Pal Vs Union of India

Sri.R Rangadhamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prakash M E Vs the Commissioner

Shri Vinod Nayak Vs the Managing Director

Ramaswamy. M. L. Vs State of Karnataka