Sri.R.S.Gururaja Vs the Managing Director

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 948 OF 2015 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. R.S.GURURAJA S/O R.N. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.9, "RAMAGIRI" 7^TH CROSS, SHARADHAMBA TEMPLE ROAD JALAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE-560 013

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, 6, JALABHAVAN, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 029

¶13

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD 6, JALABHAVAN, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 029

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. C.CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KAJAMA/HRD/A-5/THATHKALIC/PINCHANI/2555/2014-15 DATED 04.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, WITHHOLDING DCRG AND CVP PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER ON HIS RETIREMENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-U AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged an order/Office memorandum bearing No.PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ/PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZïDgïr/C-5/vÁvÁÌ°PÀ

¶22

¦AZÀtÂ/2555/2014-15 dated 04.12.2014 issued by the respondent

¶23

No.2 withholding Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (for short, 'DCRG') and Commuted Value of Pension (for short, 'CVP') payable to the petitioner on his retirement till finalization of audit process. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to release the withheld DCRG and CVP payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,86,046/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his voluntary retirement i.e. 31.01.2014 till the date of payment.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶26

The petitioner contends that while he was working as a Section officer / Overseer during the year 1996-97 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Shimoga Division, certain works entrusted to the Contractor were not completed. The respondent No.1 - Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short, 'the Board') therefore rescinded the contract and consequently, the incomplete works were entrusted to another Contractor at cost and risk of the earlier contractor. The Contractor who took over the work, completed the work in all respects and a final bill was paid. Later, the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement and his application was accepted on 31.01.2014. However, while settling the voluntary retirement benefit, DCRG and CVP payable to the petitioner were withheld. The petitioner contends that he had obtained No Objection Certificates from all the authorities concerned before his voluntary retirement was accepted on 31.01.2014. He contends that the respondent No.2 has now caused a notice dated 29.10.2014, calling for an explanation from him regarding an amount of Rs.2,81,000/- to be made good by him to the respondent No.1 - Board in view of an audit objection raised in the year 1996-97. The petitioner

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶29

is, therefore, before this Court challenging the official memorandum dated 04.12.2014 by which his DCRG and CVP payable to him were withheld by the respondent No.2 till finalization of audit process.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by the respondents against the petitioner relate to the events that happened somewhere during the year 1996-97. He contends that the petitioner was permitted to voluntarily retire from the respondent No.1-Board on 31.01.2014 and his leave encashment was also released on 09.07.2014. It is long thereafter that the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned official memorandum withholding DCRG and CVP payable to the petitioner in the light of certain audit objections raised. He contends that under Rule 214(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules ('KCSR' for short), no action to recover any amount from an employee can be taken if the misconduct was committed more than four years prior to the date of his retirement.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondents contended that the relationship of employer and employee does not terminate on

¶32

5 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶34

mere acceptance of the voluntary retirement. He contended that the petitioner was responsible for the loss caused to the respondent No.1 - Board and the same was evident from the audit report and thus, steps were taken to recover the amount mentioned in the audit report by withholding the DCRG and CVP payable to the petitioner.

¶35

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶37

The fact that the petitioner had submitted his application for voluntary retirement initially on 23.09.2013 and again on 31.12.2013 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the concerned authorities had issued appropriate 'No Objection Certificates' allowing the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily. The application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was also accepted by the respondent No.1 on 31.01.2014. The petitioner submitted his application for grant of voluntary retirement benefits on 13.02.2014 consequent to which the leave encashment was sanctioned on 09.07.2014. When it came to release of DCRG and CVP, the

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶40

respondent No.2 issued the impugned official memorandum withholding the same on the ground that certain audit objections were raised in respect of works done during the year 1996-97. Under Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSR, which is applicable to the respondent No.1-Board, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a Government servant whether post his retirement or during his re-employment, if it is in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the case on hand, the alleged audit report was in respect of the year 1996-97. The respondents proposed to recover the said amounts long after the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 31.01.2014. Therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding the DCRG and CVP to the petitioner falls foul of Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSRs. Consequently, the impugned official memorandum issued by the respondent No.2 warrants interference.

¶41

The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned official memorandum dated 04.12.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith refund balance of the Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity and

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:10111 WP No. 948 of 2015

¶44

Commuted Value of Pension and other amounts payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner till the date of payment. The same shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

In view of the disposal of this writ petition, the pending application - I.A No.1/2016 stands disposed off.

¶46

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶47

SMA

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri.R.S.Gururaja v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R.S.Gururaja v. the Managing Director

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

Sri Mansoor Ahmed Vs the Principal District and Sessions Judge

Smt. Sujatha N.G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N.Shivaprakasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Abhinand Vs the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute

Sri Rangaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G.T. Lokanatha Vs the State of Karnataka