- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45628-DB WP No. 22540 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 22540 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UPA-LOKAYUKTHA M S BUILDINGS DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-II REVENUE DEPARTMENT Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45628-DB WP No. 22540 of 2019 (STAMPS & REGISTRATION) M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI KALEGOWDA SON OF SRI JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS TERMINATED DISTRICT REGISTRAR NO.2143, 8TH MAIN ROAD, II STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5997/2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, AS PER ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45628-DB WP No. 22540 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The question for consideration in the present petition is whether this Court must, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the order dated 30.01.2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.5997/2015. The second respondent is the applicant with the Tribunal, and he has called in question the first respondent's order dated 10.06.2015. The first respondent by this order has imposed a penalty of withholding 50% of monthly pension for five years. The second respondent has called this order in question on the ground that the order is without application of mind. The Tribunal has opined that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45628-DB WP No. 22540 of 2019 penalty of withholding 50% of the pension cannot be just in the peculiarities of the case such as; that the second respondent was aged 78 years as on the date of its order, that the second respondent is acquitted of the allegation of receiving Rs.500/- bribe while working as a District Registrar and that the allegation relates to the year 1999 with the show cause notice being issued in November 2023. However, the Tribunal has opined that it would be just to withhold 50% of the pension up to 28.02.2019 and continue the reduction over the next five years at 10%. Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, the Additional Government Advocate, are heard. The petitioner is entrusted with the enquiry, and the impugned penalty order dated 10.06.2015 is based on the enquiry report by the concerned from the petitioner, but in this case this Court must opine that the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the Tribunal's - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45628-DB WP No. 22540 of 2019 decision on the punishment as that would be between the second respondent and his employer against an employee. As such, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE NV