- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 203765 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O KALLAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LOWER DIVISION CLERK CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, KARNATAKA KALABURAGI, R/O: GUG EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SIDDESHWAR COLONY, KLAABURAGI – 585 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATHISH KUMAR D GADKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, KADAGANCHI, ALAND ROAD, KALABRUAGI – 585 311. 2. THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KARNATAKA, KADAGANCHI ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 311. 3. THE FINANCE OFFICER CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 KADAGANCHI ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMA L.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.6.2024 IN FILE NO.CUK/ADM-II/F- 445/2024-25/262 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT FROM THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER, IN ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. and 3 and also learned Deputy Solicitor General for India appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The relief sought for in this petition is writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 24.06.2024 marked at Annexure – K and to direct the respondents not to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner. Annexure - K is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 pursuant to the direction issued in W.P No.202955/2023. 3. In W.P No.202955/2023, the petitioner had sought direction to the respondents to follow the procedure to recover the alleged dues from the petitioner and also sought direction to refund unauthorized deduction made from the salary of the petitioner. This court, vide order dated 18.04.2024 has observed as under: “3. The petitioner is working as a clerk in the respondents/University and is in the job of maintaining records of outsourced employees Certain amounts are to be paid to the outsourced employees by the University, for which no bills were given is the complaint of the university Therefore, the amount covered in bills of outsourced employees are deducted from salary of petitioner. Petitioner therefore has now sought for mandamus to the respondents seeking for payment of his salary. 4. Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that necessary receipts were not given despite repeated demands by the petitioner and therefore, the university has settled the account of petitioner. 5. Sri Satish Kumar D Gadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now he has furnished the copies of the receipts and bills for having taken the work from outsourced employees and therefore the petition needs be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the following ORDER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 i) The Writ Petition stand disposed of. ii) Respondents/University 15. directed to consider the bills produced along with the writ petition and if it is found in order, shall pay the amount covered under the said bills to petitioner in a maximum period of two months from today.” 4. The petitioner claims that despite the direction issued by this Court and despite production of the receipts, the respondents No.2 and 3 did not comply with the directions, as such, he was constrained to file the contempt proceeding. In the contempt proceeding, Annexure K - the endorsement dated 26.04.2024 is issued wherein, respondent No.2 claims that the documents produced by the petitioner are not in order and accordingly, the request is not considered. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite production of original bills for having paid the amount to outsourced employees, respondents No.2 and 3 are not willing to accept the petitioner's claim for having paid the amount to the outsourced employees. Thus, he would contend that the action of the respondents in recovering the alleged - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 dues from his salary without there being any enquiry and a finding to the effect, that the amount payable to outsourced employees is not paid, is erroneous. 6. It is further submitted that none of the outsourced employees has filed objection or complaint contending that the petitioner has not paid the amount due to them. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the respondents No.2 and 3 could not have deducted any amount from his salary and so far Rs.3,74,680/- is recovered up to February 2025, and every month they are deducting certain amount from his salary by stating that they will recover in all Rs.5,62,000/- and according to the respondent Rs,1,87,320/- is still due and the said claim is without any basis. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the petitioner is the employee of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has engaged certain outsourced employees to work under 1st respondent and the amount payable to the outsourced employees is credited to the account of petitioner and petitioner is required to pay the wages payable to outsourced employees and thereafter he should furnish vouchers for having paid the amount to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 outsourced employees. Despite repeated request, the petitioner has not paid original vouchers for having paid the amount to the outsourced employees and under these circumstances, the respondents have taken steps to recover Rs.5,62,000/- from the petitioner and so far Rs.3,74,680/- is recovered by deducting certain amount from his salary and Rs.1,87,320/- is still due. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, in case the petitioner produces the valid vouchers for having paid the amount to outsource employees, the further course of action will be dropped and the amount deducted will be refunded. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the copies of the vouchers produced before this court are fake and forged and created using technology as the signatures on all the receipts are exactly the same. This is one factor that has to be considered at the time of enquiry. If the receipts are found to be fake and forged, the respondents are again at liberty to take appropriate action as advised in law. 9. This court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received a certain amount every month from 1st respondent which he is required to pay to outsourced employees and thereafter, he has to furnish valid vouchers for having paid the said amount to the outsourced employees. The petitioner claims that, he has paid the amount payable to outsourced employees and he has not retained or misappropriated any amount. He further claims that he has furnished the vouchers to 2nd respondent and none of the outsourced employees has lodged any complaint alleging any misappropriation of funds by the petitioner or non-receipt of their wages. 11. Though the respondents claim that the original receipts are not produced, it is evident that no complaint is filed against the petitioner by any of the outsourced employees, stating that the amount payable to them is not yet paid. At the same time, it is also relevant to notice that no enquiry is held and concluded to determine the alleged misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. Without there being any enquiry and without there being any finding, the respondents have so far recovered Rs.3,74,680/- from the petitioner, which is impermissible. The respondents cannot conclude that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 payment is not made to the outsourced employees. There has to be a proper enquiry and there has to be a proper finding. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry is now initiated and show cause notice issued to the petitioner. 13. If that is the case, the petitioner shall appear before the authority which has issued the showcase notice and place evidence relating to the payment either in the form of original vouchers/receipts issued by the outsourced employees or at least the statement by the outsourced employees for having received the amount/wages payable to them. If such claim is established, then the respondents shall repay the amount deducted from the petitioner. If such payment is not established, then the respondents shall proceed to recover the balance amount in the manner known to law. 14. It is further made clear that, henceforth till the conclusion of enquiry there shall not be any further deduction relating to the recovery of alleged dues of Rs.1,87,320/-. 15. Hence the following. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1873 WP No. 203765 of 2024 ORDER i) Writ petition is disposed of. ii) The action of the respondents on Annexure - K dated 24.06.2024 is quashed. iii) The respondents shall hold a necessary enquiry relating to the alleged misappropriation of funds and after considering the evidence to be adduced by the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders as indicated above. iv) In case the petitioner establishes his case that entire amount is paid to the outsourced employees, the respondents shall reimburse the amount deducted along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. v) It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. vi) The enquiry shall be completed and the petitioners shall co-operate with the respondents for early conclusion of the enquiry. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39