- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUVARNA W/O LATE NAGESH KANASHETTE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.2 AND 3, 6TH CROSS, G.R. HOMES, OPP. SRI KARUMARIYAMMA TEMPLE DODDA MARA MAIN ROAD RAYACHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 099. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN AND CHAIRMAN, GESCOM BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECL BIDAR CIRCLE, BIDAR KALABURGI-585 101. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELEL GESCOM HUMNABAD DIVISION, BIDAR DIVISION, HUMNABAD, BIDAR DISTRICT-585330. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECL TLSS DIVISION, KPTCL GULBARGA DIVISION, SEDAM ROAD, GULBARGA-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADV. FOR R1 SRI PRASHANT T PANDIT, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER; QUASH THE RECOVERY MADE BY THE R3 VIDE DETAILS FURNISHED VIDE LETTER ANNEXURE-H DATED 16TH DECEMBER 2020 AN AMOUNT OF RS.13.90 LAKHS PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner, wife of deceased Sri.Nagesh Kanashetty, Junior Engineer of GESCOM is before this Court questioning the recovery of a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- during the lifetime of her husband from October 2015 to June 2019 from his salary, which was furnished to the petitioner under Communication dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-M). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Chandrachud.A., for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Prashant T. Pandit for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa for petitioner would submit that husband of the petitioner late Nagesh Kanashetty was working as Junior Engineer in the respondent-GESCOM. While he was in service, husband of the petitioner died on 18.05.2019. It is submitted that till this date, pensionary benefits or family pension is not sanctioned to the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the husband of the petitioner is due in a sum of more than Rs.1,22,55,358/- as indicated in letter dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure-L), hence pensionary benefits are not settled. 4. Learned counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa would contend that the petitioner had applied for information - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 under the Right to Information Act seeking details of the recovery made from the salary of her husband. Accordingly, Annexure-H Communication dated 06.12.2020 is issued, enclosing statement which indicates that a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- was recovered from the salary of petitioner’s husband. Learned counsel would submit that the said amount is not determined in any enquiry. Further learned counsel would submit that no enquiry whatsoever was held against the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime by issuing a charge memo. Further, learned counsel would submit that enquiry was held against other officers in respect of the loss caused to the respondents and under order dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure-G), it is held that charges are not proved against other officials. No enquiry against the petitioner’s husband is held or the amount indicated in Annexure-H is determined in any enquiry. Thus, he submits that the respondents could not have recovered the said amount from the salary of the petitioner’s husband. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for family pension and other pensionary benefits which is not settled till this date. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents are expected to settle the pension and pensionary benefits immediately on the death of her husband, but arbitrarily or without there being any reason the respondents have not yet settled the pensionary benefits of late husband of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Prashat T. Pandit for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the petitioner’s husband had caused loss to the respondent- GESCOM and several notices were issued to make good the loss caused has not yielded any result. But, the petitioner’s husband had failed to reply any of the notices and accordingly the recovery was effected from the salary of the petitioner’s husband. He submits that, the petitioner’s husband has caused huge loss to respondent- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 GESCOM and as such the respondents are justified in recovering some of the amount from the salary of petitioner’s husband. With the above, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, “Whether the respondents could have recovered a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- from out of the salary of the petitioner’s husband, without determination of the amount or without conducting any enquiry?” 8. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative and respondents could not have recovered any amount from the salary of petitioner’s husband without determining amount in a properly instituted enquiry, after affording opportunity to the petitioner’s husband, during his lifetime. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 9. It is not in dispute with regard to working of late husband of the petitioner Sri.Nagesh Kanashetty as Junior Engineer in the respondent-GESCOM. The husband of the petitioner died on 18.05.2019 and death certificate to that effect is produced as Annexure-K to the writ petition. On the information sought by the petitioner, Annexure-H, Communication dated 16.12.2020 is furnished to the petitioner wherein statement showing the details of recovery effected from salary of Nagesh Kanashetty is enclosed. The said statement would indicate that a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- is recovered from the salary of petitioner’s husband during the period from October 2015 to June 2019. 10. The respondents have filed statement of objections which would not disclose conducting of any enquiry or proceedings to determine the amount. On the other hand, it only indicates that late husband of the petitioner had drawn materials worth Rs.5,15,90,096/-. Unless the authorities determine the amount in a properly - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 instituted enquiry under the service regulations, the respondents would not get jurisdiction to recover any amount from its employees. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to submit as to whether any enquiry or proceedings has taken place to determine the amount. 11. This Court in an identical fact situation in W.P.No.22582/2015 dated 21.10.2020 after noticing the relevant Regulations 168, 171, 172, 173 and 173-A of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1996 has held that, if recovery is to be made, that amount ought to have been determined in a departmental enquiry. Relevant paragraph 10 reads as follows: “10. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions it is crystal clear that it is mandatory to hold a departmental enquiry before recovery of any loss to the Government/State functionaries. If recovery is to be made, that amount ought to have been determined in a departmental enquiry. Admittedly, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 departmental enquiry initiated is terminated as abated. Therefore, the alleged loss amount stated in the impugned order is not the amount determined in a departmental enquiry. The respondents have not pointed out any statutory provision that the alleged loss caused to the respondent employed by the deceased employee would be recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased in a suit proceeding. In the absence of any statutory provision, the question of filling of a suit prima facie do not arise. Assuming is any Regulation provides for filing suit in the jurisdictional Court, respondents are at liberty to file suit for recovery.” 12. The respondents on the death of husband of the petitioner on 18.05.2019 are duty bound to settle the pension/family pension and other pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of such deceased employee. But in the instant case, even after more than six years, the respondents have failed to settle the pensionary benefits of late husband of the petitioner, which is unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 13. The respondents are obliged to consider the sanctioning or otherwise of family pension in terms of Section I of Regulation 226 of KEB Regulations. The respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty in not considering sanction or otherwise of family pension of the petitioner. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Recovery in a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- as intimated to the petitioner under Communication dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-H) is quashed with a consequent direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- to the petitioner with admissible interest. c) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2852 WP No. 3587 of 2022 family pension and other pensionary benefits due to the death of her husband and release the same within a period of three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49