IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 2725 OF 2017 (S-R) BETWEEN:
SRI S. B. MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE BYCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.15, 10TH CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, H A F POST, GANGANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560024.
(BY SRI RAJU P., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001.
... PETITIONER 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.62/2016-17 DATED 22.6.2016 AND KCSR RULE 252[A] [ANNEXURE-J & K] AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND OTHER STATUTORY SERVICE BENEFITS DUE TO THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. S. B. Muniyappa has challenged the legality of the order dated 22-06-2016 whereby he has been denied his pensionary benefits on the ground that he was dismissed from service.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Police Department, as a Constable, on 10-02-1971. In 1983, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable; in 1997 to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. But on 04-09-1999, he was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged that he had accepted a bribe of Rs.25,000/- for which, he was eventually convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and was sentenced of two years, S.I. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the conviction order, he filed an appeal before this Court. By order dated 01-02-2012, this Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to one year. Since the petitioner was still aggrieved by the continuation of the conviction, he filed an SLP. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP on 30-04-2012. Thereafter the petitioner suffered the sentence in jail.
During the tenure of his service, he was charge- sheeted by the Department. Although the enquiry officer exonerated him, but on 16-12-2006, he was dismissed from service on the basis of his conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner challenged his dismissal order dated 16-12-2006, before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. However, subsequently, on 30-07-2013, the petitioner withdrew the appeal.
The petitioner claims that he had superannuated on 31-08-2011. Therefore, he issued a notice to the respondent on 10-05-2016, calling upon the respondent to give him the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits. However, by letter dated 22-06-2016, he has been informed that he cannot be granted either the pension or other retiral benefits. Hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Raju P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that since the petitioner had superannuated on 31-08-2011, he is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits. However, the same has been denied to him for the last six years. Therefore, the order dated 22-06-2016 should be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the letter dated 22-06-2016.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel is highly misplaced. Once the petitioner was dismissed from service on 16-12-2006, the question of his retiring on 31-08-2011 does not even arise. For, the relationship of an employer and an employee, came to an end in 2006 itself. The petitioner had challenged the dismissal order dated 16-12-2006, before the learned Tribunal. However, the petitioner had withdrawn the said appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that he had retired from his service on 31-08-2011.
6. Moreover, according to Rule 252 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, if a person were to be dismissed from service, he forfeits his past services. Since the petitioner was dismissed from the service, obviously he has forfeited his past service. Therefore, the question of paying the pension and other retiral benefits does not even arise in the present case.
7. Hence, a rather frivolous petition has been filed before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. But, before this Court dismisses this case, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, to be deposited with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, for having filed an absolutely frivolous petition before this Court.
For the reasons stated above, the petition hereby stands dismissed, with aforementioned cost.
Sd/- Judge Rd/-