- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.45578 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MR. ABDUL SAMAD S/O. ABDUL WAHEED, OCC:EX-PEON, THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GANGAVATHI, R/O: LAKSHMI CAMP, GANGAVATHI - 583 227, KOPAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHALINI A. HASINAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.434, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VV TOWERS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOR KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL - 583 231. 4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GANGAVATHI - 583 227, DISTRICT KOPPAL, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 NO. 1 IN ENQUIRY CASE NO.NA.AA.E 134 TMS 2012 DATED 21.06.2018 TO THE EXTENT OF IMPOSING THE PENALTY TO DEDUCT 15% IN THE PETITIONER'S PENSION AMOUNT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the appellate authority imposing penalty of stoppage of 15% of the pension against the petitioner for a period of 5 years. 2. Heard the learned counsel Smt.Shalini A.Hasinal appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.B.Sharanabasawa appearing for the respondent No.4- City Municipal Council and the learned HCGP Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a peon in the 4th respondent in the year 1977. After about 24 years of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 service in the year 2001, alleging that the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of funds of the Municipality, comes to be dismissed from service. This is challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.33956/2004. The Coordinate Bench of this Court disposes the petition, in terms of its order dated 21.02.2012, by remitting the matter back to the hands of the 1st respondent-State to consider the case the petitioner afresh, with a direction to pass necessary orders, on affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with a pointed direction to the respondents as to whether the petitioner had worked as a recovery clerk or is a peon in its Office and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. 4. The 1st respondent then issues a notice of enquiry to the petitioner on 30.01.2013. The enquiry was not concluded despite passage of 3 years. The petitioner again approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.101493/2016, seeking expeditious disposal of the enquiry. This Court disposes the petition on 21.03.2018, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 directing the 1st respondent to conclude the enquiry by passing necessary orders within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. A representation is submitted by the petitioner enclosing the copy of the order in Writ Petition No.101493/2016. Even then, the proceedings did not get concluded. A contempt petition is filed by the petitioner in CCC No.100115/2018. This results in the order being passed against the petitioner, whereby pension of the petitioner is reduced by 15% for a period of 5 years. It is this action that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 6. The learned counsel Smt.Shalini A.Hasinal appearing for the petitioner, takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition, seeking to demonstrate that the petitioner was never entrusted with the work of collection of revenue. Revenue officer was one Veerabhadrappa. The petitioner joined as a peon and remained a peon throughout. Therefore there was no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 warrant of collection of any funds by the petitioner particularly of the job of the Revenue Officer. The learned counsel would further contend that the revenue officer who was in charge of collection of funds, who alone can be held responsible for misappropriation of funds, was also dismissed along with the petitioner. His dismissal is revoked and is imposed a penalty of payment of Rs.65,000/- with stoppage of 2 increments and the said Veerabhadrappa is given all the terminal benefits. The petitioner is chosen for a differential treatment, notwithstanding the fact that he was in no way responsible for collection of revenue. She would seek quashment of the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel representing the 4th respondent-Municipality Sri.B.Sharanabasawa would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the petitioner did work as a recovery officer as his designation was bill collector. It was his job to have collected the revenue, but did not deposit the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 same immediately. Therefore is alleged of temporary misappropriation. This has been proved in the enquiry. The enquiry is conducted in consonance with principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is his submission that this Court should not interfere with the action of the respondents in punishing a person who has indulged in temporary misappropriation. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. The learned HCGP representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would also toe the lines of the learned counsel Sri.Sharanabasawa in seeking dismissal of the petition. Both the counsel for the respondent, learned HCGP and the counsel for respondent No.4 would however accept the fact that, one Veerabhadrappa was a revenue officer in the 4th respondent-Municipality and was the in-charge of collection of revenue. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective parties and have perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 10. The afore-narrated facts, the link in the chain of events and cases filed by the petitioner, are not in dispute. His appointment in the 4th respondent as a peon is a matter of record. This happens on 12.09.1977. His dismissal comes about in the year 2001, is again a matter of record. The petitioner challenges the said dismissal before this Court in Writ Petition No.33956/2004, this comes to be disposed on 21.12.2012, by the following order: “10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The order impugned passed by the first respondent dated 23.7.2004 vide Annexure-J is hereby set aside and matter stands remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the order passed by him vide Annexure-J dated 5.1.2002 and after calling report from the 4th respondent as to whether petitioner has worked as recovery clerk or as peon in its office and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and dispose of the same, expeditiously. Ordered accordingly.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 11. The direction was issued to re-do the exercise, after identifying whether the petitioner has worked as a recovery clerk or a peon in the Office of the 4th respondent and then pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. After the matter being remitted back, it lied in cold storage for 4 years, as the enquiry did not get complete. The petitioner then approaches this Court yet again, seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the enquiry. This Court directs disposal of the enquiry within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Even then the enquiry was not complete, which drove the petitioner to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. The result is the order that is passed on 21.06.2018, by the 1st respondent. The order read as follows: “¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ (¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE 134 nJAJ¸ï 2012 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21£Éà dÆ£ï 2018 ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï vÀAzÉ C§ÄÝ¯ï ªÀ»Ãzï. … ... CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ. £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, UÀAUÁªÀw. -«gÀÄzÀÞ- ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ... ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À (C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁw) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2010 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 25(2)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÄîä£À« «ZÁgÀuÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É: F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄgÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¥Ë¤:«ZÁgÀtÂ:UÀÄ«:gÁf:70:97-98. ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.03.2001gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/04/2001 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À (C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁw) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2010 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 25(2)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîä£À« §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ dgÀÄV¹, ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀ (¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆArgÀĪÀ) £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, UÀAUÁªÀw EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîä£À«UÀ¼À°è ºÁUÀÆ RÄzÁÝV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR¯É ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄgÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¥Ë¤:«ZÁgÀuÉ:UÀÄ« :gÁf:70:97-98, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/03/2001gÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE 63 rJAPÉ 99, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/01/2002 gÀ°è£À zÀAqÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹ÜjÃPÀj¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE 46 rJAPÉ 2001, ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/07/2004 gÀ°è . ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. F DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆgÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. :- The order impugned passed by the first respondent dated 23/07/2004 vide annexure-J is here by set aside and matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the order, passed by him vide annexure-J dated 05/01/2002 and after calling report from the 4th respondent as to whether petitioner has worked as recovery clerk or as peon in its office and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and dispose of the same, expeditiously. Ordered accordingly". ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/3/2012 gÀAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21/02/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/07/2004 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ, vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ wÃ¥ÀÅð ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ. vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉñÀ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀeÁUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¹, ªÉÃvÀ£À ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21/02/2012 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/07/2004 £ÀÄß vÀ½î ºÁQ jmï CfðzÁgÀjAzÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå ¥Àj²Ã°¹ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ, jmï CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À jÃvÁå DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29/12/2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ (D¥Á¢vÀ £ËPÀgÀ) ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀ. £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, UÀAUÁªÀw gÀªÀgÀÄ 1995-96£Éà ¸Á°£À°è gÀÆ.2,41,025-40 ºÁUÀÆ 1996-97£Éà ¸Á®£À°è gÀÆ.2,33,808-00 MlÄÖ gÀÆ.4,74,833-40 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÁV ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁr, dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á®ÄUÀ¼À Drmï ¯ÉPÀÌ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ gÀ¹Ã¢ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛ¤AzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ. ¥Àæw ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ CAzÀgÉ JgÀqÉgÀqÀÄ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À 1965 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 152 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ §¼À¸À¯ÁzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¹ ºÉƸÀ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¤AiÀĪÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV G®èAX¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆævÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À, «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆævÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ 2£Éà PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¹UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ºÁUÀÆ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/03/2001 gÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß 1957gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 8(viii) gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï (D¥Á¢vÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ) EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£É «¢ü¹ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀjAzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï £ÀqÀªÀ½ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ. EªÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀ¥À, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À. EªÀjAzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAQÃtð PÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ.4,74,833-40UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄzï, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå 33956/2004 £ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21/02/2012gÀAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÅð ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¹ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¸Ë®¨sÀå ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«UÉ GvÀÛgÀªÁV JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ (²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ) PÀArPɪÁgÀÄ µÀgÁ (¸ÀéAiÀÄAªÉÃzÁå n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è) ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁj EªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12/09/1977 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀ (¥ÀÇå£ï) JAzÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt dgÀÄVgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀ UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw PÁAiÀÄð EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ªÀiËTPÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀ¸ÀÆ° UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÁV vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV -UÀAUÁªÀw £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¥ËgÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀArPɪÁgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÀÄzsÉå CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ°è jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå: 101493/2016 (S-RES) £ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/03/2018 gÀAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÅð ¤Ãr DzÉñÀzÀ ¥Àæw vÀ®Ä¦zÀ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV «ZÁgÀuÁ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤zÉÃð²¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «¼ÀA§ªÁV dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. F §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/02/2013 jAzÀ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ dgÀÄV¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17/02/2018 gÀAzÀÄ CAwªÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄîä«zÁgÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÁzÀ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D°¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. DzÉñÀ jlÖ Cfð ¸ÀASÉå :33956/2004gÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/02/2012 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:101493/2016gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/03/2018gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã°¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À« ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957 gÀr ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/04/2001 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã°¹. ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 25 gÀr ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹. ²æà C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀªÀÄzï, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀ, £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ, UÀAUÁªÀw, EªÀgÀÄ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt gÀÆ.4.74.833-40UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV DgÉÆæ¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÀªÁV dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢¬ÄAzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ EªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¥Ë¤:«ZÁgÀuÉ:UÀÄ«:gÁf:70:97-98. ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/03/2001£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁQ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀ ¦AZÀt ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è ±ÉÃ.15gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ PÀrvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£É «¢ü¹. DzÉò¹zÉ. F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21£Éà dÆ£ï 2018 gÀAzÀÄ vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¹ WÉÆö¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” The aforesaid order observes that the petitioner was responsible for collection of revenue of Rs.4,74,833/- and had temporarily misappropriated the same, as he had deposited the same with delay. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is admission of guilt. I - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 decline to accept the said submission that it is admission of guilt. Nowhere the petitioner has admitted his guilt that he had misappropriated the amount, it is at best the finding of the enquiry officer which is recorded by the 1st respondent while passing an order. 12. The other submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent is that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of recovery of money as his designation was a bill collector. Nowhere there is an order passed by any competent authority directing the petitioner to do the work of a recovery officer of collection of revenue. A recovery officer was specifically available in the Municipality by name Veerabhadrappa. The said recovery officer was also proceeded against departmentally and was imposed penalty of dismissal from service. 13. Therefore both the petitioner and 4th respondent were initially dismissed from service. The appeal of Veerabhadrappa was answered and the dismissal was revoked and imposition of penalty of Rs.65,000/- to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 be paid to the coffers of the Municipality was imposed upon him with stoppage of 2 increments without cumulative effect. This is a matter of record. The petitioner was chosen for a differential treatment, as what is imposed upon him, is 15% of reduction in pension for a period of 5 years. Therefore, there is huge reduction in terminal benefits to the petitioner, while the person who is responsible for the state of affairs, is asked to deposit Rs.65,000/- and is imposed penalty of withholding of increments for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect. 14. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circumstance of the two involved in the same transaction and the same allegation of misappropriation of funds, could not have resulted in different penalty; one being imposed with the stoppage of 2 increments without cumulative effect, and the petitioner stoppage of pension for 15% for a period of 5 years. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 15. The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance in the case of RAJENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, where the Apex Court follows the case of DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS Vs. G. DASAYAN2, wherein the Apex Court observes that the penalty cannot be different for persons involved in the same transaction. “9. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co- delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 10. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is Director General of Police and Others v. G. Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of 1 2013 (3) SCC 73 2 1998 (2) SCC 407 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 compulsory retirement on Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co- delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case (supra), the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit. 12. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments also would apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re- instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 16. The Apex Court directs maintenance of parity in penalty also. This Court would have directed the same penalty to be imposed but the fact is the petitioner was - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 never a revenue officer, he was a peon. There is no evidence that he was asked to work as a revenue officer. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed in its entirety. 17. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed on all the aforesaid counts. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. Petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Enquiry Case No.Na.Aa.E 134 TMS 2012 to the extent of imposing penalty to deduct 15% in the petitioner's pension amount for a period of five years vide Annexure-F stands quashed. c. The petitioner shall become entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the order which would be the 15% of pension that has been withheld for the last 5 years to be paid to the petitioner, the order should be - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3265 WP No. 45578 of 2018 complied within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8