IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.34340 OF 2018 ( S-RES) Between:
Sri.S.N.Anil Kumar, S/o D.Narasimhappa, Age: 60 years, Retired Accounts Superintendent, R/at ‘Venkateswara Prasanna’, 2nd Cross, Renukamba Badavane, Kashipura Main Road, Shivamogga – 577 204.
…Petitioner (By Sri.K.Manjunatha Rao Bhounsle, Advocate) And:
1. The Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board, Rep. by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, No.6, I Phase, I Stage, BTM Layout, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 029.
2. The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board, Shivamogga Division, DC Compound, Balaraj Urs Road, Shivamogga – 577 201.
(By Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, Advocate) …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the proposal/communication dated 21.06.2018 vide Annexure-E issued by the 2nd respondent and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the communication dated 21.06.2018 between Executive Engineer and Secretary of the Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board relating to re-fixation of pay due to anomaly occurred from 01.07.1993 to the extent that petitioner has been paid in excess. Such a proposal and order of recovery of Rs.1,38,673/- from the pension of the petitioner is without hearing the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned action is not in accordance with principle of natural justice and further, contended that after retirement of an employee, question of recovery of excess payment do not arise in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the impugned action of the respondents relating to petitioner has not been heard.
4. In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexures-E and F are treated as show-cause notices to the petitioner. Petitioner is hereby directed to furnish his reply/explanation within a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter, concerned respondent is hereby directed to pass necessary order, after due consideration of petitioner’s contention to be raised including the Supreme Court decision cited supra.
Such order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of petitioner’s explanation/reply.
With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Consequentially, I.A. No.3/2018 for dispensation does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM/BVK