IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.55415 OF 2013 (S-R) BETWEEN SRI PUTTAMALIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE KARAGA PUTTAIAH, R/AT NO.906, 3A CROSS,9TH MAIN, HRBR I BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043 (BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P S MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B V MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 ... RESPONDENTS SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO FIX AND PAY FULL PENSION TO THE PETITIONER viz., AT THE RATE OF RS.12,525/- PLUS ADMISSIBLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT ONWARDS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though, this matter is listed for “Hearing - Interlocutory Application”, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits with a reference to his date of retirement on 30.06.2008 or not?”.
3. The petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in the respondent No.2 – Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and retired on 30.06.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondent No.2 - BBMP withheld the pensionary benefits ostensibly on the ground that a complaint had been made against the petitioner and two others with regard to the irregularities in execution of works during the year 1993-94. Learned counsel submits that one another Officer against whom allegations were made in the same complaint, approached this Court in W.P.No.48571/2014 in the case of Venkappa Naik.P /vs./ The State of Karnataka and another. This Court by order dated 03.02.2016, considered the arguments of the respondent No.2 - BBMP that under Rule 214 of the KCSR, the government is justified in withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and the Co-ordinate bench proceeded to examine the provisions of Rule 214 of KCSR. The bench held that a bare perusal of the said Rule clearly reveals that the Government does have the power to either withhold, or withdraw the pension, or part thereof if in any departmental, or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of the misconduct, or negligence during the period of his service. Further it was held that Rule 214 of the Rules defines both the terms “departmental proceedings” and “judicial proceedings”. A “judicial proceedings” is deemed to be instituted in case of criminal proceeding on the date on which the complaint, or the report of the police officer is submitted before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance thereon. Thus, clearly a judicial proceeding cannot be held to be instituted at the stage of an investigation. It was therefore held that the respondents are not justified in claiming that merely because an investigation is pending against the petitioner, by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, his case is covered within the definition of the word “judicial proceedings” contained in Rule 214 of the Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - BBMP further submits that this Court in Venkappa Naik.P (supra) did not take into consideration Rule 214A of the KCSR. This Court is of the opinion that the very same words “departmental proceedings” or “judicial proceedings” have been referred to in Rule 214A also. Therefore, the reasoning in Venkappa Naik.P (supra) holds good in case of Rule 214A also.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and perusing the writ papers and the decision in Venkappa Naik.P (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the relief granted in Venkappa Naik.P (supra) shall enure to the petitioners herein.
6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 - BBMP is directed to pay the petitioner the entire pensionary benefits and retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A. No.1/2019 is also disposed of.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE