- 1 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 Reserved on : 25.03.2026 Pronounced on : 09.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 15527 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H R BHAGAVAN DAS, IPS (RETD), (SR.CITIZEN-ES005S220069300) S/O LATE H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT 173, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, CIL 'A' BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGARA, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094, (RETD) AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLAR, GOLD FIELD, K.G.F-563 113. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRI KUMAR S. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE COMMUNICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER VIDE BEARING No.DPAR 48 SPP 2016 DATED 27.08.2016 AT ANNEXURE A - A13 AT PAGE No.133 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTS IS NOT AN ORDER UNDER THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri.S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The applicant in O.A. No.170/00431/2022, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”), is before this Court. - 3 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while serving as Superintendent of Police, KGF, retired from service on 31.07.2016. The State Government, by order dated 27.08.2016, directed settlement of provisional pension under Rule 6(2) of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the 1958 Rules”) and ordered withholding of DCRG and commutation of pension. Respondent No.2 accordingly released provisional pension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. 3.1 Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.170/00281/2017 challenging the orders dated 27.08.2016 and 07.10.2016. The Tribunal disposed of the said application on 01.03.2018, reserving liberty to the State Government to initiate proceedings within three months and to approach the Tribunal, if necessary. 3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.08.2018 seeking release of service benefits in terms of the order dated 01.03.2018. The said representation remained unconsidered. Though the petitioner initially preferred a contempt petition before the Tribunal, the same came to be - 4 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 withdrawn. Subsequent representations were also submitted seeking compliance with the order dated 01.03.2018. 3.3 Despite the same, respondent No.1 neither initiated any disciplinary proceedings nor settled the service and pensionary benefits. Consequently, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for release of service and pensionary benefits and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 23.08.2018. 3.4 The Tribunal, upon considering the objections raised by the respondent authorities with regard to the pendency of judicial proceedings, rejected the application. 4. Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2016 and that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016. It is contended that, in view of Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules, no proceedings can be instituted after retirement without the sanction of the Central Government. It is further submitted that no proceedings can be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years prior to such institution. - 5 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 4.1 Learned counsel would contend that, in the present case, though criminal proceedings are stated to be pending in Crime No.22/2018, no charge sheet has been filed within four years and, therefore, such judicial proceedings do not bar settlement of pensionary benefits. It is also urged that unless cognizance is taken on a complaint, the mere existence of a complaint would not constitute a bar. According to the learned counsel, the “complaint” contemplated under Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules must be one made on oath, and in the present case, the complaint is not one made on oath. 4.2 Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.19093/2024, decided on 09.10.2025, in the case of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao v. The Secretary and Others, to contend that unless the complaint culminates in cognizance being taken by the Magistrate, it cannot be said that judicial proceedings are pending. It is further submitted that, in the present case, no such cognizance was taken within a period of four years. It is also contended that no departmental proceedings have been initiated till date. - 6 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, submits that the complaint was lodged within four years from the date of retirement in respect of an incident that occurred while the petitioner was in service. It is contended that, on a plain reading of Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules, there is no requirement that cognizance of the complaint must be taken by the Magistrate. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal, having rightly interpreted the provisions of the 1958 Rules, has rejected the application and the same does not warrant interference. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. 7. The dates and events referred to above are not in dispute. However, certain relevant dates are briefly recapitulated herein. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016 while serving as Superintendent of Police, KGF. Thereafter, by Government Order dated 27.08.2016, a decision was taken to sanction provisional pension and to withhold DCRG and commutation of pension in terms of Rule 6(2) of the 1958 Rules. - 7 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 7.1 Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules provides for recovery from pension. The said Rule also extends protection against the initiation of departmental or judicial proceedings after retirement in respect of events that took place during service, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. In the present case, this Court is concerned with Rule 6(1)(c), which reads as under: "6(1)(c) such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the pensioner was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution." 7.2 According to Rule 6(1)(c), where judicial proceedings have not been instituted while the pensioner was in service, such proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years prior to such institution. Clause (b) of the Explanation to Rule 6(1) defines “initiation of judicial proceedings” and provides for the institution of both civil and criminal proceedings. Insofar as criminal proceedings are concerned, it stipulates that judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge sheet is filed before the competent criminal court. - 8 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 7.3 The scope of the term “complaint” has been sought to be interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to mean a complaint made on oath. It is further contended that unless cognizance is taken on such complaint, it cannot be said that judicial proceedings are pending. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said contention. 7.4 The settled principles governing statutory interpretation need no reiteration. A statute, rule, or regulation must be construed on its plain language. When Rule 6 contemplates a “complaint”, additional requirements such as the complaint being on oath or cognizance having been taken thereon cannot be read into the provision. The interpretation suggested by the petitioner would amount to rewriting the rule, which is impermissible. 7.5 In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sri K. Venkateswara Rao (supra), to contend that unless a complaint culminates in cognizance being taken by the Magistrate, it cannot be treated as a bar or as having been instituted within time. The said judgment, in our considered view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the - 9 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 said decision, this Court was interpreting Rules 9 and 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short, “the 1993 Rules”), which read as under: “9. Right of the President to withhold or withdraw pension. (1) The President reserves to himself the right of with holding or withdrawing a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement; Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred seventy five per mensem. (2) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub- rue (1) - (a) if instituted while the railway servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the railway servant, be deemed to be proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they commenced in the same manner as if the railway servant had continued in service. Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by - 10 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President; (b) if not institute while the railway servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment – (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which and order in relation to the railway servant during his service. (3) In the case of a railway servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in rule 10 shall be sanctioned. (4) Where the President decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a railway servant. (5) For the purpose of this rule - (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the railway servant or pensioner, or if the - 11 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 railway servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. 10. Provisional Pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending. (1) (a) In respect of a railway servant referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorise the provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the bases of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the railway servant or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (b) The Provisional pension shall be authorised by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement upto and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the railway servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon; provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of the - 12 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii a) and (iv) of rule 6 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the railway servant. (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub- rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such railway servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.” (Emphasis supplied) 7.6 In the aforesaid Rules, the expression “judicial proceedings” is also defined in a manner akin to clause (b) of the Explanation to Rule 6(1) of the 1958 Rules. The comparative position is as under: Rule 9(5)(b) of 1993 Rules Rule 6(1)(c )(b) of 1958 Rules (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to the criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made to a civil court. - 13 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 7.7 Under the 1993 Rules, judicial proceedings are deemed to be instituted on the date on which a complaint, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. In the light of the said specific provision contained in the 1993 Rules, this Court, in the aforesaid judgment, held that filing of a report would constitute sufficient compliance. 7.8 In the present case, though the charge sheet came to be filed after a period of four years and eleven months, the requirement under the 1958 Rules is only the making of a complaint. The complaint in Crime No.22/2018 was registered within four years, the incident having occurred in the year 2016. A plain reading of Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules indicates that registration of a complaint is sufficient. There is no requirement that such complaint must be made on oath or that cognizance thereof must be taken by the Magistrate. 7.9 The Tribunal, having rightly interpreted the said provision, has held that the sanction of provisional pension and withholding of other benefits is justified in view of the registration of the complaint within the prescribed period, thereby complying with Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules. Upon an independent examination of Rule 6 in the above context, this - 14 - WP No. 15527 of 2024 Court finds itself in complete agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS