IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOs.1832-1833 OF 2019(S-RES) Between:
1. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Jawahar Vyaapar Bhavan Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110 001. Represented by CMD Now Delegated to Deputy Manager Sri.C.Kumar.
2. Joint General Manager State of Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110 001. ... Appellants (By Shri. S.N. Murthy, Senior Counsel Along with Sri. Somashekar, Advocate) And:
Sri. S.Shrikanteshwara S/o Late. P. Shankaraiah Aged about 63 years No.48, Bull Temple Road Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004. ... Respondent (By Sri M.S.Bhagawat, Advocate for C/R) These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated:11.02.2019 in WP No.11518/2018 and order dated:07.03.2019 on I.A.No.1/2019 in WP.No.11518/2018 of the Learned Single Judge and consequently dismiss the WP No.11518/2018 and etc.
These appeals, coming on for orders, this day, Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT I.A.No.3/2019 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeals.
2. Sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 87 days. Therefore, I.A.No.3/2019 for condonation of delay is allowed.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11th February 2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of more than one petition. This appeal is confined to the order passed in W.P.No.11518/2018. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioner therein. The order allowing the writ petition was modified by a further order passed on 7th March 2019, by which, the present appellant was directed to pay to the writ petitioner earned leave encashment, half pay leave benefits, travelling allowance/daily allowance and other benefits with 8% interest. However, as the departmental enquiry is in progress against the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge directed that gratuity will not be payable to the writ petitioner till the disposal of the departmental enquiry.
4. In support of the appeal, firstly our attention is invited to the Service Regulations of the appellants. By relying upon the Service Regulations, it was contended that the Rules regarding encashment of leave as applicable are at Annexure R2 which authorize the appellant to withhold the benefit of encashment of leave. Reliance is also placed on the Circular dated 2nd April 2012 regarding introduction of STC Employees Defined Contribution Superannuation Pension Scheme and in particular, sub-clause (f) of Clause 10 thereof. His submission is that pending the disciplinary proceedings, even pensionary benefits can be withheld.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We find that as far as the disciplinary enquiry of the employees of the appellant is concerned, the same will be governed by STC Employees’ (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the said Rules’). Rule 30-A, of the said Rules is the Rule which permits continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. But for Rule 30-A, the appellants could not have continued the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner after the superannuation. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A is material, which empowers the disciplinary authority to withhold payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The Rule does not permit withholding of any other retiral dues.
6. The disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner are continued only in exercise of the powers under Rule 30-A of the said Rules. Therefore, the appellant can withhold only those benefits which are specifically allowed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A of the said Rules. The appellant cannot rely upon any other Regulation or Pension Scheme.
7. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A is a provision which gives a power to the disciplinary authority to withhold the retiral benefits during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. That power is confined only to withholding of gratuity.
8. It was sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellants that as far as the loss caused to the appellant due to the misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner is to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. This submission does not merit consideration as the power to withhold is limited by sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A of the said Rules.
9. Therefore, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 11th February 2019 as amended by the order dated 7th March 2019. Hence, the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-