- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100118 OF 2024 (S-DE) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY-583101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.MUNUSWAMY NAIDU, S/O. LATE K. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, AGE: 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT YERRITHATA COLONY, BHAVYA NILAYA, OPP. TO SHARADA CLINIC, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.14368 OF 2012 (S-DE), SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO FULL PENSION FROM THE DATE OF COMPULSORY Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.05 11:07:43 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 RETIREMENT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This intra-Court appeal by the respondents in W.P. No.14368/2012 takes exception to the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge who partly allowed the writ petition in terms of the impugned order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: i) The respondent herein was working as a Shirestedar in the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, against whom a disciplinary enquiry was initiated which resulted in an enquiry report dated 03.01.2012 pursuant to which, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 Disciplinary Authority, who was the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ballari, exercised its powers under Rule 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules’ for short), and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement together with reduction of 1/3rd of invalid pension as directed in the said order which reads as under: “In Exercise of the powers conferred under rule 11 and rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 this Disciplinary Authority is hereby imposed penalty of compulsory retirement to Sri. K.Munuswamy Naidu, the delinquent official with immediate effect. The order of suspension stands cancelled with immediate effect and the period of suspension is to be treated as such. Further in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 218 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 pension at the rate of 2/3rd of the invalid pension admissible, rounded off to nearest rupee is granted to the delinquent official. The seized amount is to be confiscated to the Government after appeal period is over.” ii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority directing compulsory retirement and also withholding of 1/3rd of invalid pension, the respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 approached this Court in W.P. No.14368/2012. The said petition having been contested by the appellants herein, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the petition in part by confirming the order of punishment of compulsory retirement, but setting aside the order of withholding of 1/3rd of invalid pension, as directed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing compulsory retirement has not been challenged by the respondent-Shirestedar and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and binding between the parties. It follows therefrom that the limited consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding 1/3rd of invalid pension as directed in the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would invite our attention to Rule 218 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules 1958 in order to contend that, by virtue of the said Rules, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 Disciplinary Authority was empowered to reduce 1/3rd of the invalid pension in terms of Note 1, and having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in reducing 1/3rd pension payable to the respondent and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge without considering the above said provision or the material on record deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Shirestedar would also invite our attention to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in order to point out that except the operative portion of the said order, in which the Disciplinary Authority purports to reduce 1/3rd of the invalid pension, in the preceding body of the said order, there are absolutely no reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority as to why 1/3rd pension was being reduced and consequently, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in passing the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the writ appeal and liable to be dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 7. Before adverting to rival submission, it would be necessary to extract Rule 218 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which reads as under: “218. A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-thirds of the invalid pension and not more than full invalid pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. Note 1.- The intention, is that persons on whom the penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed should ordinarily be granted the full invalid pension and Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity, if any, admissible on the date of compulsory retirement. Where, however, the circumstances of a particular case so warrant, the authority, competent to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement, may subject to the orders of the appellate or Revising Authority, make such reductions in the pensionary benefits within the limits prescribed, as it may think appropriate. A reduction may be made either in the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity or in the Pension or in both. The reduction to be made in the pension shall be in whole rupees only. Note 2.-Provisional pension may be authorised immediately after Government servants are compulsorily retired under this rule, withholding, however, the D.C.R.G. till the final pension order is issued.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 8. A bare perusal of Note 1. appended to Rule 218 will clearly indicate that it is only after coming to the conclusion that circumstances of a particular case warrants, after arriving at a objective satisfaction of the material available, that it would be appropriate to reduce the pension and only thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority would be entitled to reduce pension to 1/3rd of invalid pension in terms of the said provision; as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is sufficient to come to the conclusion that except in the operative portion of the said order, there is absolutely no reference whatsoever to Rule 218 of the Rules, ingredients or circumstances warranting invocation of the said provision so as to reduce the pension payable to the respondent to 2/3rd by deducting 1/3rd as directed in the operative portion of the said order. In other words, in the absence of any reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority highlighting warranting invocation of Rule 218 of KCSRs or by deeming it appropriate to reduce the pension payable to the respondent to 2/3rd, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single judge was fully justified in taking into account the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case including - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB WA No. 100118 of 2024 the undisputed fact that the respondent was about to compulsory retire at the fag end of service and as also fact that he has now attained the age of superannuation and has withdrawn the entire pension in pursuance of the same. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any error of jurisdiction or illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the present appeal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, it is confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12