Dr B Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

DR. B BASAVARAJU S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED AS JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560023 R/AT NO.12, MODEL HOUSE, BEHIND KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL, KUVEMUP NAGAR, MYSURU -570009 PH: 9448264147 EMAIL ID: [email protected] …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K SATISH, ADV. FOR SRI LOKESH M., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONERATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560023.

¶18

THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD , BANGALORE – 560023.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) PARK HOUSE ROAD, P B NO.5329, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.V SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/10/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4494/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND II) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/10/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.4494/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.4494/2025 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND)

¶29

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for Sri.Lokesh.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents.

¶30

The applicant in Application No. 4494/2025 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) has preferred the present writ petition calling in question the order dated 30.10.2025. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon-cum-Health Officer and was thereafter promoted as Joint Director. He retired from service on 31.07.2020.

¶31

2.1 The third respondent, by letter dated 16.12.2020, addressed to the fourth respondent informed about the pendency of a departmental enquiry. However, the Chief Administrative Officer of the first respondent issued an official memorandum stating that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2020 and that no departmental enquiry was pending against him as on the date of his retirement.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

2.2 However, departmental enquiry was in fact pending. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was subsequently withdrawn by Government Order dated 03.05.2025, reserving liberty to initiate a suit for recovery of the alleged financial loss to the Government exchequer. Notwithstanding the above, the respondentauthorities provisionally settled the pension, and the final settlement of pensionary benefits was kept pending on the ground of the pendency of the departmental enquiry.

¶35

2.3 The petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal questioning the liberty reserved to initiate a civil suit for recovery and also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to settle and disburse the pensionary benefits, including all incidental payments and benefits. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the application filed by the petitioner, holding that no cause of action was made out to maintain the application.

¶36

Sri K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that once the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was withdrawn by Government Order

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

dated 03.05.2025, there remained no justification for withholding the final settlement of the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further submits that though liberty was reserved in the said Government Order to initiate proceedings for recovery, the same has not been acted upon and, till date, no proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the alleged financial loss. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the respondent-authorities are not justified in withholding and not settling the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

¶40

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government

¶41

Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that, till date, no civil suit has been initiated, as contemplated in the Government Order dated 03.05.2025.

¶42

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the writ papers, we are of the view that there is no impediment for the respondent-authorities to settle and disburse the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner.

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

It is evident from the Government Order dated 03.05.2025 that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was withdrawn in terms of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, while reserving liberty to institute a civil suit for recovery of the alleged financial loss. Even after the lapse of more than seven months, no such suit has been instituted. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no justification for the respondent-authorities in withholding and not settling the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

¶47

When the petitioner had challenged the Government Order dated 03.05.2025, insofar as it reserved liberty to institute a civil suit, and had alternatively sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent-authorities, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal committed an error in not issuing a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to release, settle, and disburse the pension and other pensionary benefits.

¶48

This Court is inclined to allow the present writ

¶49

petition and direct the respondent-authorities to release, settle, and disburse the pension and pensionary benefits, including all

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:1054-DB WP No. 36444 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

other statutory benefits, to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest in terms of the existing Government Orders.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶55

direction.

¶56

Time for compliance of this order is three months from the date of production of this order before the respondent authorities.

¶57

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶59

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Dr B Basavaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr B Basavaraju 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri.Kashinath Sankappa Asooti

Sri. B.N. Vasu, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Gowdra Vs Principal Chief Conservator of

Smt. Ranjita D a Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner of Central Tax Vs P J B Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri B Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka