- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. B. K. MUKUNDAIAH, S/O LATE B. KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RETD) R/AT SRI HARIHARA KRUPA, BEHIND GAYATRI TEMPLE, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR 572 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B G SREEDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B J ESWARAPPA., AGA FOR R1; SRI.VENKATESH S. ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2022 IN APPLICATION NO. 5730/2020, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner, a retired civil servant, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 12.01.2022 made by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal whereby, his Application No.5730/2020 has been negatived. In the said Application, he had called in question the Government Order dated 15.10.2020 whereby, he was punished by way of directing recovery of Rs.3,96,400/- by way of 41 equivalized monthly installments of Rs.7,880/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE: (a) Petitioner entered the service of Co-operative Department on 28.5.1994 and retired on 30.6.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the last leg of his service, he was working as the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. One Mr.Kodandarama Naik being the Chairman of a Co-operative Society, complained to the petitioner about misappropriate of Rs.1,80,000/- by the Secretary of the Society Mr.L.E.Narayana. Petitioner conducted a formal enquiry and had issued endorsement. Not being happy with that, Mr.Kodandarama lodged a complaint with Upalokayukta alleging that the petitioner has not diligently done his duty and as a consequence, the Society suffered the loss, more particularly because the said amount was not recovered from the Secretary. (b) The preliminary enquiry report was filed under section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The government agreeing with the same, entrusted the disciplinary enquiry to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14A of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Enquiry Report dated 31.10.2018 held the petitioner guilty by observing ‘I am of the considered opinion that, DGO is guilty of negligence in discharging his duties and deliberately omitted to take any action against the Secretary L.E.Narayana…’. (c) Hon’ble Upalokayukta vide Report dated 3.11.2018 recommended recovery of Rs.3,96,400/- from the pension of petitioner by way of penalty. Government issued Show Cause Notice dated 5.1.2019 along with the report. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 27.2.2019 pointing out the lapses on the part of the Enquiry Officer and also the recommendation. However, the government vide order dated 15.10.2020, accepted the recommendation and levied penalty of recovery of Rs.3,96,400/- in 41 EMIs of Rs.7,880/-. Petitioner’s challenge to the same was negatived by the Tribunal and that is how, this petition is placed at our hands now. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 3. SUBMISSIONS AT THE BAR: 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the very case of the complainant was that it was L.E.Narayana, the then Secretary of the Society who had misappropriated amount and the same was quantified at Rs.1,80,000/-; the Enquiry Officer, Hon’ble Lokayukta and the Tribunal approached the matter as if it was the petitioner who had misappropriated the amount; secondly, the endorsement issued by the petitioner was a product of exercise of quasi judicial power and therefore, ordinarily, such actions are not subject to disciplinary control; if at all anyone is aggrieved, the remedy lies under the provisions of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959; thirdly, he alleges gross non-application of mind by all the stakeholders to the material borne out by record; lastly, he says that mere negligence in the discharge of official duties is no ground for invoking Rule 214A of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, against the retired employees. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 3.2 Learned AGA appearing for the respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He further submits that a Writ Court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should not undertake a deeper examination especially when the Upalokayukta, the government and the Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the allegation is principally against L.E.Narayana who happen to be the Secretary of subject Co-operative Society. However, the Enquiry Officer proceeded on a wrong premise that it is the petitioner who is responsible for the loss caused to the Society by Mr.Narayana. If evidentiary material was looked into with due seriousness, such a finding would not have been recorded against the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 5. Secondly, the petitioner had discharged quasi judicial function then being the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and an endorsement was issued after holding an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act. It was open to the aggrieved party to raise an arbitral dispute under section 70 or to take up the matter in Appeal or Revision, as the case may be. In matters of quasi judicial functions, ordinarily, disciplinary enquiry is not to be readily undertaken. We should not be construed to have said that there can be no disciplinary proceeding in respect of judicial or quasi judicial functions. In appropriate cases, there can be; however, this is not one such, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. There is force in the submission of petitioner’s counsel that for holding a disciplinary proceeding post- retirement and for imposing a penalty of recovery from pension, mere negligence in the discharge of duty is not sufficient, what is being essential is ‘gross negligence’. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 This view gains support from the decision of Apex Court in D.V.KAPOOR vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1990) 4 SCC 314. It is not the case of respondents that the petitioner had black spots in the Service Records. Obviously, petitioner having served the department, earned promotions and thereafter, peaceably retired from service. Now, he has been in the evening of his life. Even this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the disciplinary authority. 7. It is relevant to reproduce a part of para 12 of the Reply Statement filed by the respondents before the KAT. “It is submitted that had the Applicant conducted the enquiry under the provisions of the above said Act, with integrity and unbiased the irregularities committed by the Secretary of the said Society could have been prevented which would have benefited the members of the said Society. Hence, the Applicant is solely responsible for the negligence and deliberated inaction in not taking any action against the Secretary of the said Society, which amounts to dereliction of duty. Hence, the Applicant is liable for the recovery of the pecuniary losses of the Society…” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 The above stand apparently shows that it was the Secretary who was responsible for the alleged loss. However, he was given the clean chit acting on the Audit Report of the Society which mentioned the amount being credited to the account of the Society by the said delinquent. On what basis, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding that the Society has suffered a loss of Rs.3,96,400/-, has not been demonstrated from the records. However, why the Chairman of the Society took appropriate proceedings under the Act like raising the dispute under section 70, remains a mystery wrapped in enigma. In the above circumstances, the petition is allowed; the impugned order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is quashed; petitioner’s Application No.5730/2020 having been favoured, the punishment order of recovery is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner all that money recovered from his pension within an outer limit of eight weeks; delay if brooked would attract interest at the rate of 1 % for the first three - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9938-DB WP No. 2377 of 2022 months and 2 % for the period next following, which component may be recovered from the erring officials. Costs reluctantly made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23