- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 76294 OF 2013 (S-R) BETWEEN: RAJASHEKAR S/O VEERAPPA HOOLI, AGE: 60 YEARS, RETIRED SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ZONAL NO.12, HDMC, DHARWAD, R/O: "YELGAR ONI", KAMANAKATTI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HUBLI-580 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ZONAL NO.12, FIRST FLOOR, KALABHAVAN BUILDING, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHARWARD. 3. CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI 580 020. 4. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PENSION CELL, HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBLI-580 020. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.29 10:53:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA WATER BOARD, HUBLI-DHARWAD WATER SUPPLY, MAINTENANCE DIVISION, JALAMANDALI COMPOUND, SIR M. VISHVESWARAIAH ROAD, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 MISS VINUTHA M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO: A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED:24/01/2013, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO ORDER DATED:24/01/2013, PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B, IN SO FAR RECOVERY OF AN AMOUNT OF Rs.5,72,251/- FROM THE PETITIONERS RETIREMENT AND PENSIONSARY BENEFITS, IS CONCERNED. B. QUASH THE ORDER DATED:12/04/2012, ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-S, THE ORDER NO. KA JA MAM/KAPA A/DHAV DHA/LE SHAKE/2012-13/3048 DATED:29/12/2012, ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-Z, AND ORDER NO. KA JA MAM/ KAPAA/DHA V-DHA/LE SHAKE/2012- 13/3335 DATED:24/01/2013, ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-AE. C. DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO RELEASE ALL THE RETIREMENT AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS IMMEDIATELY ALONG WITH INTEREST FOR DELAYED PAYMENT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24.01.2013 by which an amount of Rs.5,72,251/- is deducted from out of the pension or terminal benefits of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.J.S.Shetty appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath, appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Miss.Vinutha M. Khannur Advocate for Sri.Madanmohan M. Khannur, appearing for respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner, who is now 72 years old was at the relevant point in time an employee of the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (for short “HDMC”) and was sent on deputation to the Karnataka Urban Water Supply Board ( for short “KUWSB”)-5th respondent herein to function as a clerk and address the complaints of grievances of the consumers. The petitioner then completes his tenure in the year 2008 and comes back to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 the HDMC who is principal employer and retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. Long thereafter, a communication is said to have emerged from the 5th respondent KUWSB to the HDMC. By which a direction is issued to make good Rs.5,72,251/- which had come about in an audit objection on 06.06.2008. This audit objection results in recovery of amount of Rs.5,72,000/- from the hands of the petitioner through his terminal benefits. That action of the respondents that is called in question in this subject petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.J.S.Shetty appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that for determining an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- as payable by the petitioner not even a notice was issued nor an enquiry was conducted to fix the responsibility on the petitioner for an alleged misappropriation of the amount of Rs.5,72,000/-. Learned counsel would further take this Court through the averments in the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner was deputed as a clerk to look into the grievances of the consumers in KUWSB and had no role to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 play in collecting cash or otherwise. The counsel appearing for the respondent-HDMC or the 5th respondent would seek to contend only on the basis of the communication so made, as 12 years have lapsed, the respondents have not filed their statement of objections. Therefore, the averments made in the petition are taken note of. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue relates to a person who retired 13 years ago is wanting to get back a sum of Rs.5,72,000/- that is recovered from his pension at the time of his retirement. The service of the petitioner in the HDMC or his deputation to the KUWSB is not in dispute. 7. The deputation would commence in the year 2004 and ends in the year 2008. After the exit of the petitioner or repatriation to the parent department i.e., HDMC. Audit is supposed to have been conducted in the KUWSB and the audit objection is a difference of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 Rs.5,72,000/-. The audit objection is on 06.06.2008 long before the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. After the retirement of the petitioner a communication is addressed by the KUWSB to the HDMC. The communication reads as follows: PÀæ.¸ÀA/PÀdªÀÄ/PÁ¥ÁC/zsÁ« zsÁ./¯É.±ÁSÉ/2012-2013/ ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-12-2012 £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ, UÉ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀ«ÄñÀ£ÀUÀ (DqÀ½vÀ) ºÀħâ½î zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ²æÃ. gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ «ÃgÁ¥Àà ºÀÆ° EªÀjAzÀ d®ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¨ÁQ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃj n¥ÀàtÚ ¸ÀASÉå : JeÉrJA¹. /2101010012/ ¤ªÉà ¢ 3.12.2012. 2. F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå.1781 ¢.22.9.12. ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃR 2£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸ÀävÁÛ ²æÃ. gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ «ÃgÁ¥Àà ºÀÆ° ¢é.zÀ.¸À(¤) EªÀjAzÀ d®ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¤Ãj£À PÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ §AzÀ ¨Á§vÀÄÛ, gÀÆ.5,72,251/- §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉÝ. PÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ²æà gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ «ÃgÀ¥Àà ºÀÆ° ¢é.zÀ.¸À(«) EªÀjAzÀ ¨ÁQ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁr F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÀj¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä°è F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «£ÀAw¸À¯ÁVzÉ, EzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁ»wUÁV w½¹zÉ. 8. The communication is that an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- is due from the hands of the petitioner to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 the KUWSB. Therefore the same has to be made good. Making it good results in the impugned order of recovery of an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- from terminal benefits of the petitioner. The communication reads as follows: PÀæ.¸ÀA/PÀdªÀÄ/PÁ¥ÁC/zsÁ« zsÁ./¯É.±ÁRqÀ/2012-2013/3048 ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.12.2012 £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ: UÉ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀ«ÄñÀ£ÀgÀ (DqÀ½vÀ) ºÀħâ½î zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ºÀħâ½î. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ¸À£ï 2004-05 jAzÀ 2006-07 £Éà ¸Á°£À «ÄÃlgÀ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ «±ÉõÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:56 ¢.12.4.12. 2. vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀARzÀAiÉÄ: JaØJA¹/20 02 3. F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA.1267, ¢:23.08.2008. ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¤AiÉÆÃf¹zÀÝ ²æÃ. gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ «ÃgÁ¥Àà ºÀÆ°, ¢é.zÀ.¸À(¤ªÀÈvÀÛ) EªÀgÀÄ 2004-05 jAzÀ 2006-07 ªÀgÉUÉ ¤Ãj£À PÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.12,37,233/- ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ, EªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «±ÉõÀ ¤ªÁ¹ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ (gɹqÉAl Drl D¦ü¸Àgï J.f. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ) EªÀgÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ°è gÀÆ.6,64,982/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Reconcile ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ (subject to approval from Board central office) ¨ÁQ gÀÆ.5,72,251/- ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ G¯ÉèÃR ¥ÀvÀæ(2)gÀ°è vÁªÀÅ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ, «±ÉõÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉÆvÉ ®UÀwÛ¸ÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÈwÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ°è MAzÉà ¨ÁjUÉ PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹ ¨ÁQ ºÀt gÀÆ.5,72,251/- F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÀgÀuÁ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ d®ªÀÄAqÀ½, ºÀÄ.zsÁ.¤Ã.¸À. ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 9. The issue now would be who has determined the amount at Rs.5,72,000/- to be recovered from the hands of the petitioner. What is indicated in the order quoted supra is a petitioner has to make it good towards misappropriation of the amount. Misappropriation is a grave allegation. Such allegation could not have been made without at the outset holding an inquiry fixing responsibility of such misappropriation against the petitioner. 10. The submission of the learned counsel Sri.J.S.Shetty appearing for the petitioner is acceptable as there are no objections filed even today despite passage of 13 years, that he was deputed in the Corporation only to work as a clerk, and has nothing to do with a collection of funds. If that be so, and no inquiry being conducted and an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- being recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner becomes on the face of it illegal, high handed, and grossly arbitrary. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 11. Therefore, the petition deserves to be succeed with a direction for refund of the amount of Rs.5,72,000/- recovered along with interest from the date the payment fell due till the date of its payment. 12. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed. (b) The order dated: 24.01.2023 passed by the 1st and 4th respondent vide Annexure-A and B respectively and order dated:12.04.2012, 29.12.2012 and 24.01.2013 issued by 5th respondent vide Annexure-S, Z and AE respectively are stand quashed (c) Respondents No.1 to 4, who have recovered the amount of Rs.5,72,000/- from the pension of the petitioner shall refund the same within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order along with interest at 6% per annum from the date it was recovered till the date of its payment. (d) In the event the respondents No.1 to 4 would not pay the amount within four weeks as directed, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1154 WP No. 76294 of 2013 petitioner becomes entitled to interest at 12% per annum and cost of Rs.1,000/-, day on day till the amount would reach the doors of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3