- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 1908 OF 2020 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: SRI G H SHIVALINGA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O SRI G H HALAPPA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY RETIRED R/AT NO.2009/174 0 TARALABALU BADVANE, 3RD STAGE DAVANGERE – 577005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YASHWANATH NETHAJI N.T., ADV. FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.8936/2014, (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.8936/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 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 AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The State is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 14.02.2019 in Application No.8936/2014 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent who retired as Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2004 approached the Tribunal in the above stated Application questioning Annexure-A4, Government Order dated 06.06.2014 passed in an enquiry conducted against other Government Officials, wherein the Government has taken a decision to recover a sum of Rs.4,60,554/- from the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 respondent herein by filing a suit under the provisions of Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Rules 1985. The recovery relates to the compensation awarded to the victim of the motor vehicle accident. The State Government initiated enquiry against the officers concerned to recover the compensation awarded. The Tribunal under impugned order held that in the light of Rule 214(3) of KCSRs, impugned order dated 06.06.2014 (Annexure-A4) insofar as respondent herein is concerned requires to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Against which, the State is before this Court. 3. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Yashwanth Nethaji.N.T., for Sri.K.V.Narasimha, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the enquiry was conducted against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 concerned persons and the impugned order dated 06.06.2014 was passed in which a decision was taken by the State Government to recover a sum of Rs.4,60,554/- from the respondent herein. He submits that since no penalty is imposed against the respondent, the Tribunal could not have applied Rule 214(3) of KCSRs and quashed the impugned order dated 06.06.2014. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the decision is only to file suit to recover certain amount and as such the Tribunal could not have allowed the application. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the application by allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Yashwanth Nethaji.N.T., appearing for respondent would contend that no enquiry is conducted against the respondent herein. Further, it is submitted that without fixing the responsibility on respondent and without providing any opportunity could not have taken unilateral decision to file suit to recover certain amount. It is the submission of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 learned counsel for the respondent that unless the responsibility is fixed in a legally constituted enquiry or proceedings, the suit for recovery would not be maintainable against a Government servant. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the point which falls for our consideration is as to, “Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court?” 7. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: 8. Admittedly, the respondent herein retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2004. The incident in respect of which recovery by filing suit is taken relates to the accident which had taken - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 place on 22.11.2003. Admittedly, enquiry is conducted against the respondent to fix the responsibility. Admittedly, enquiry was conducted against the other Government servants and they have been imposed with punishment under Annexure-A4, Government Order dated 06.06.2014. In the said Government Order itself, decision is taken to file civil suit against the respondent to recover Rs.4,60,554/- by filing suit under the Conduct of Government Litigation Rules, 1985. Without determining the amount and without fixing the responsibility, unilaterally, the State Government could not have taken decision to file recovery suit. No opportunity whatsoever is provided to the respondent before taking a decision in terms of Government Order dated 06.06.2014 (Annexure-A4). Admittedly, the incident on which the Government order dated 06.06.2014 came to be passed relates to the accident dated 22.11.2003, whereas petitioner retired on 30.11.2004. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19196-DB WP No. 1908 of 2020 9. The above reasoning is in addition to the reason assigned by the Tribunal at paragraph 5 of the impugned order. 10. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23