- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.60999 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B. KEMPANNA S/O LATE BOLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA, BEHIND RENUKA YELLAMMA TEMPLE, P.C. EXTENSION, TEKAL ROAD, KOLAR-563 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED, BEEJA BHAVANA, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VARUN K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-G. QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G 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 Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Deputy Seed Production Officer of the respondent-Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited (for short ‘KSSCL’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the interest calculated at Rs.39,989/- and to release all the terminal benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of recovery till its payment. 2. Heard Sri. Naik.V.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vasuki.K.N., learned counsel for Sri. B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner retired from the respondent-Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. While he was in service, prior to his retirement, office order dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure-H) came to be passed imposing punishment of withholding one annual increment permanently and to recover a sum of Rs.17,984/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.1988. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 4. The challenge to the office order dated 15.12.2004 imposing punishment was the subject matter of the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7154/2005 and the same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach Appellate Authority. 5. Learned counsel Sri. V.S.Naik would submit that the petitioner had made representation to the respondent-Board and considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent-Board obtaining information/opinion from the Internal Audit Wing (IAW) of the respondent-Corporation, took a decision to refund the amount ordered to be recovered under order of punishment dated 15.12.2004 in its 264th Board Meeting held on 22.09.2014. Learned counsel would further submit that in pursuance to Annexure-G, Communication, the petitioner was refunded a sum of Rs.17,984/- but the grievance of the petitioner is that the said amount of Rs.17,984/- was recovered with 12% interest and the interest part was Rs.39,989/- and the respondent-Board failed to order refund of interest calculated on Rs.17,984/-. It is submitted that action of the respondent in not refunding the interest calculated is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when once the Board takes a decision to refund the amount ordered to be recovered under order of punishment, it is deemed that the refund would be along with interest calculated on the said amount. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that from the date of refund of amount of Rs.17,984/-, the petitioner would be entitled for interest of Rs.39,989/-, which the respondent has failed to refund. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when Board has taken a decision to refund Rs.17,984/-, which was recovered in pursuance of punishment order along with interest and when it takes a decision to refund the said amount, which was ordered to be recovered, it also includes recovered interest and having failed to refund the said amount, the respondent-Board is liable to pay interest on the said amount till it is repaid. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel Sri. Vasuki.K.N., for Sri. B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation would submit that the petitioner was imposed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 punishment of withholding one increment permanently and further it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs.17,984/- along with 12% interest from 01.04.1988 and accordingly, the above stated sum was recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Thereafter on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent-Board on obtaining opinion from IAW, ordered to refund only amount of Rs.17,984/- and there is no order to refund the interest amount recovered. Therefore, he supports the order of the respondent. Further, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if the interest is also directed to be refunded, it amounts to modifying the order of penalty. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to “Whether the petitioner would be entitled for refund of the amount as sought in the prayer.?” 10. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following reasons: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 Any action of the respondent, which is a State Authority shall be reasonable, fair and shall stand to the reasons. In the instant case, no doubt the petitioner was imposed with penalty of withholding one increment permanently and in the same order, there was a direction to recover a sum of Rs.17,984/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.1988. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.7154/2005 and this Court directed the petitioner to avail appeal remedy. The petitioner had made representation/appeal before the respondent-Board and respondent-Board by considering the representation of the petitioner, took a decision to refund the amount ordered to be recovered from the petitioner under order of penalty dated 15.12.2004. The respondent-Board in its 264th Meeting held on 22.09.2014 took following decision: “The Board after detailed discussion decided to refund only Rs.17,755.75 as per the recommendation of the Internal Audit Wing and not to revoke the penalty imposed.” Though the respondent-Board used words ‘not to revoke the penalty imposed’, when it took a decision to refund amount in terms of penalty order, it would amount to modifying the order - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 of penalty. When order of penalty is modified and decision is taken to refund a sum of Rs.17,984/- ordered to be recovered along with interest, the interest recovered also shall have to be refunded. Refund includes interest recovered on the recovered amount also. The decision of the Board to refund the amount ordered to be covered as penalty on considering the appeal/representation of the petitioner, it would amount to modifying the penalty by the Board-Appellate Authority, which would also mean that there is no punishment of recovery. If there is no penalty of recovery the question of recovering interest on the said amount also would not arise. The action of the respondent-Corporation is unreasonable and unfair. The amount which the petitioner was entitled to as on the date of refund has been retained by the respondent-Corporation without understanding its own Board decision. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation is also liable to pay interest on a sum of Rs.39,989/-, which the respondent-Board has recovered as interest while recovering the amount ordered to be recovered under penalty order which was subsequently ordered to be refunded. In the above circumstances, following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3571 WP No. 60999 of 2016 ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed; (b) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-Corporation to refund a sum of Rs.39,989/- recovered as interest on Rs.17,984/- in terms of the order of punishment dated 15.12.2004 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. (c) Time for compliance: Two months from the date of uploading the copy of order on the official website of High Court of Karnataka. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37