- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 27051 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI N R NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O SRI. RAMAIAH RETIRED AS FDA ON 28-02-2013 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL COURT, CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001 R/AT NO.55, 13TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA PIPE LINE, BANGALORE-560023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR P., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A AND E), PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 5. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER PENSION PAYMENT TREASURY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 6. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRALIZED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, B BLOCK, ANNEX BUILDING, BKG COMPLEX, NO.1 AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 7. THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CAUVERY BHAVAN BRANCH-03182 BANGALORE-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5 SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3 V/O DATED 03.07.2019, NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S R7 IS SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN D.E.NO.20/2010 AND IN APPEAL NO.HV/E & A 9/2013 ON THE FILE OF 3RD AND 2ND RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY; QUASH ORDER (A). DATED 09.01.2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT MADE IN D.E.20/2010 ANNEXURE-K; (B) ORDER NO.ADM-I(COMPLAINT/21/2013 DATED 11.01.2013 ANNEXURE-L OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, a retired First Division Assistant of the City Civil and Sessions Court is before this Court primarily questioning the Appellate order dated 07.12.2016 in Appeal No.HV/E & A 9/2013 (Annexure-V) of the second respondent imposing modified punishment of imposing withholding of five annual increments in the cadre of Shirestedar and also order of re-fixation and consequential recovery under Annexure-W bearing No.ADM I (C) 50/2017, Bengaluru dated 18.01.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner while working as Sheristedar in City Civil and Sessions Court, a departmental enquiry in D.E.No.20/2010 was initiated by issuing charge memo. The opetitioner submitted his written defence and the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply, appointed Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report on 25.02.2011 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner/DGO are proved. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice along with enquiry report and the petitioner is said to have submitted his reply under Annexure-H. Under order dated 09.01.2013, the Disciplinary Authority – third respondent imposed punishment of reversion of the petitioner from the cadre of Sheristedar to the cadre of FDA. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent on consideration of the appeal, passed impugned order as at Annexure-V dated 07.12.2016 modifying punishment imposing cut- off/withholding five annual increments in place of reversion. Consequently order dated 18.01.2017 is passed re-fixing the pay of the petitioner and in pursuance to that order, a sum of Rs.1,75,552/- is recovered from the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.R.Naveen Kumar for Sri.Rajashekar.P., learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivaprabhu - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 Hiremath for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the modified punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority is harsh when it has come to the conclusion that the charge No.1 against the petitioner of demanding and accepting illegal gratification is not proved. Learned counsel would submit that withholding/cut-off of five annual increments would be too harsh and by virtue of the said punishment, petitioner’s basic pay was fixed from Rs.30,400/- to Rs.27,400/-. Learned counsel would submit that the second charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner was possessing excess cash which was not declared. Learned counsel would submit that for the proved second charge, cut-off/withholding of five annual increments is disproportionate. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2013 and the withholding of five annual increments - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 is ordered by the Appellate Authority on 07.12.2016, much after retirement of the petitioner. The order of cut- off/withholding of five annual increment is unimplementable since the said order is passed subsequent to his retirement. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that though the first charge is not proved as held by the Appellate Authority, punishment for proved second charge is proportionate to the gravity and nature of the charge. Further, learned counsel would submit that there is sufficient material on record to prove the second charge. Hence, the Appellate Authority is justified in imposing punishment of cut-off/withholding of five annual increments. Learned counsel would further submit that the consequential order at Annexure-W is the result of modified appellate order and it followed the order of punishment. Further, learned counsel would submit that in terms of order dated 28.01.2013, the period from - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 30.09.2010 to 06.07.2012 during which the petitioner was under suspension is treated as admissible leave or extraordinary leave. As such, the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner during the said period is ordered to be recovered which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is proper and correct. Thus, he would pray 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 points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: a) Whether the Appellate Authority is justified in imposing punishment of cut- off/withholding of five annual increments, on modifying the punishment of reversion from the cadre of Sheristedar to First Division Assistant? b) Whether the respondents are justified in recovering the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner for the period from - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 30.09.2010 to 06.07.2012 in terms of order at Annexure-N dated 28.01.2013? 8. The answer to the above points would be that the respondents are not justified in imposing the punishment of cut-off/withholding of five annual increments and also in recovering the subsistence allowance from the petitioner for the following reasons: 9. The fact of conducting enquiry against the petitioner and on proved charge Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of reversion from the cadre of Sheristedar to the cadre of FDA under order dated 09.01.2013 of the respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by said order of punishment, filed appeal and the Appellate Authority modifying the punishment, imposed punishment of cut-off/withholding of five annual increments in place of reversion from the cadre of Sheristedar to the cadre of FDA. The finding of the Appellate Authority at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 reads as follows: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 “13. It is evident from the records that at 12.30 p.m. itself that amount is paid. The Vigilance people of the High Court have visited the office in the afternoon at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the DGO that the said amount was paid by DW-1 during lunch hour, therefore, he could not make any entry in the registry due to the rush of work. The DGO being the responsible Sheristedar. it appears was entrusted with the work of making entries in the said register pertaining to the officials working under him. When such responsibility is given to him, can it lie in his mouth that due to rush of work, he could not make any entry with regard to money paid to him by the so called Advocate. Such an explanation, in the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is right in holding that the DGO has failed to given proper explanation to account the amount found with him in a sum of Rs.720/- which is excess to his declaration. Under the above said circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority so far as it relates to the allegation pertains to the second charge is concerned. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 14. Having come to such a conclusion, it is seen from the records that the DGO has served the Institution for more than 27 years with unblemished service record except the one for which the inquiry was held at the fag end of his service. No other disciplinary inquiry or warnings or notices were issued against him. It is not the allegation of the Inquiry Officer that the conduct of the DGO is bad during discharging his duties as a public servant in the department. The said isolated un-pleasant incident, has resulted in the above said punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. 15. Further added to the above, the DGO has already retired from service. He has to maintain his entire family out of his pension. In the said bets and circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, is of the opinion that, when charge No.1 is not proved and for the purpose of imposing punishment, charge No.2 has to be taken into consideration. Even king into consideration the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, in the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the DGO. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, is of the opinion, that if the order s set aside to the extent of punishment reverting the DGO to the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 lower cadre and cut off five increments to the post, he was holding as on the date. just prior the inquiry, it would meet the ends of justice.” 10. The Appellate Authority has categorically found that charge No.1 that while the petitioner was discharging duty as Sheristedar in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengalurru accepted a sum of Rs.20/- as gratification is not proved and has come to the conclusion that punishment of reversion is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner/DGO. Having come to the said conclusion the second respondent was not justified in imposing punishment of cut-off/withholding of five annual increments on the petitioner. The proved charge is that petitioner was possessing excess cash which was undeclared. For the proved charge of undeclared cash that too, after retirement of the petitioner, imposing cut- off/withholding of five annual increments is disproportionate and too harsh in the case of the petitioner. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 11. Moreover, withholding of annual increments subsequent to his retirement is unimplementalbe since the petitioner would not earn any increments subsequent to his retirement. Therefore, as on the date of Appellate Authority’s order, the said punishment could not have been imposed. On a retired Court employee or Government servant, the punishment that could be imposed is under Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which permits withholding or reduction of pension. In the instant case, for the proved charge of possessing excess cash, appropriate punishment would be withholding of 10% pension for a period of two years would be proper and reasonable. 12. The respondent No.3 under Annexure-N, directed to treat the period between 30.09.2010 to 06.07.2012, during which period, the petitioner was under suspension, as admissible leave or extraordinary leave. In pursuance to that order, the third respondent ought to have examined as to whether there is any leave at the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 credit of the petitioner and thereafter action could have been taken to treat extraordinary leave. But, without examining that aspect, the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner is ordered to be recovered on the ground that when the period of suspension is treated as extraordinary leave, petitioner would not be entitled for salary or other allowances. 13. The purpose of paying subsistence allowance to a suspended employee is to sustain himself and his family. If that is the object and purpose of paying subsistence allowance, recovering the same would be unjustified, unreasonable and unfair. In terms of Rule 98 of KCSRs, a suspended employee would be entitled for subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of the last salary drawn for the first six months and at 75% if the suspension continues for more than six months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, action of the second respondent is liable to be interfered with. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the following: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 ORDER a) Annexure-K, order dated 09.01.2013 in D.E.No.20/2010; Annexure-L, order bearing No.ADM-I(Complaints)/21/2013, Bengaluru dated 11.01.2013; Annexure-V dated 07.12.2016 in HV/E & A 9/2013; and Annexure-W, order bearing No.ADM I (C) 50/2017, Bengaluru dated 18.01.2017; Annexure-Y, letter bearing No.PV/3/R4/1517167503/2091318741/20 1718/175436 dated 07/21.07.2017; and Annexure-Z, letter bearing No.REF:Pen:R00604671 dated 26.03.2018 are quashed. c) The respondent No.3 is directed to impose punishment of withholding 10% of petitioner’s pension for a period of two years. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4576 WP No. 27051 of 2018 d) Consequently, respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,75,552/- recovered from the petitioner and consequential recovery made in pursuance to re-fixation in terms of Annexure-W dated 18.01.2017. e) Time for compliance: Three months from today. f) With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23