- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 2678 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SHYAMRAO V. MUKTHEDAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATA RAO, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYATH SECRETARY (RETIRED), R/AT No.373, ATRIYA NILAYA, 9TH MAIN ROAD, OPP. TO GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EX-OFFICIO UNDER SECRETARY, RDPR DEPARTMENT (PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT) M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. 2. OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA, REPTD. BY REGISTRAR M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 3. THE OFFICE OF THE TALUK PANCHAYATH, REPTD. BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YELBURGA-583232, KOPPAL DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2022 BEING PASSED IN A.No-1733/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri G. Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1, and Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 has been served and is unrepresented. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.1733/2020 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner was working as Panchayath Development Officer in Kallura Gram Panchayath, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District, during the year 2005-06. Articles of Charge were issued alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs.55,000/- for making payments to 12 beneficiaries under the Grameena Ashraya Yojane in 2005-06; an amount of Rs.5.475 lakhs to beneficiaries under the same scheme in 2006-07 without the requisite photographs showing the stage and progress of construction; and an amount of Rs.60,000/- under the Vishesha Vasathi Yojane for Devadasis by releasing the amount to two beneficiaries for extension of existing construction. The petitioner filed a reply in response to the Articles of Charge. The Disciplinary Authority concluded the enquiry after examining three witnesses and held the charge to be proved. 4. Respondent No.1, after considering the report submitted by Respondent No.2, by order dated 14.01.2020, imposed a penalty of recovering Rs.6,62,500/- from the pension of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 petitioner. Challenging the said order of penalty, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, which, by the impugned order, rejected the application. 5. Sri G. Nataraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the payments were made to the beneficiaries in accordance with their requests at various stages of construction of the houses under the respective schemes. Learned counsel further submits that the payments made to the beneficiaries are not in dispute and, therefore, the question of misappropriation does not arise. It is contended that the case pertains not to misappropriation but to irregularity, and, accordingly, imposition of a penalty recovering a substantial sum of Rs.6,62,500/- from the petitioner’s pension is not appropriate. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has no alternative means of livelihood, and that recovery of the penalty from his pension would seriously affect his life. 6. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1, submits that the Articles of Charge were issued and, on consideration of the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer has held the charge to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 be proved against the petitioner. In view of the recommendation made by Respondent No.2, by order dated 14.01.2020, a penalty was levied directing recovery of Rs.6,62,500/- from the petitioner’s pension. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the order imposing the penalty is founded on proven evidence and is, therefore, justified. 7. Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, reiterating the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the enquiry was conducted after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. The enquiry report is based on evidence, and the recommendation has been made for recovery of the said amount. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we note that Respondent No.2 has issued the Articles of Charge, as follows: " CHARGE-1 That, you-DGO Sri Shyamarao V.Mukthedar while working as Secretary, Kallura Gram Panchayath, Yelaburga Taluk, Koppal District during the year 2005- 06 misappropriated an amount of Rs.0.55 lakhs by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 making payment to 12 beneficiaries under Grameena Ashraya Yojane among them some have not constructed houses some of them have repaired their old houses without constructing new houses as per the guidelines of the scheme and thereby you-DGO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the said act of you were un-becoming of a Government Servants and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966. CHARGE-2 Secondly, you-DGO Sri Shyamarao V.Mukthedar while working as Secretary, Kallura Gram Panchayath, Yelaburga Taluk, Koppal District during the year 2006- 07 misappropriated an amount of Rs.5.475 lakhs by making payment to beneficiaries under Grameena Ashraya Yojane without obtaining the photograph of showing the stage and progress of construction of house by releasing the amount as per your whims and fancy and thereby you-DGO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the said act of you were un-becoming of a Government Servants and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966. CHARGE-3 Thirdly, you-DGO Sri Shyamarao V. Mukthedar while working as Secretary, Kallura Gram Panchayath, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 Yelaburga Taluk, Koppal District during the year 2006- 07 misappropriated an amount of Rs.0.60 lakhs under Vishesha Vasathi Yojane for Devadasis by releasing the amount to two beneficiaries who have extended the construction in front of their houses which were constructed under Grameena Scheme which amounts to frustration of purpose and object of the scheme and thereby you-DGO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the said act of you were un-becoming of a Government Servants and thereby committed mis-conduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966." 9. To prove the charges, the Enquiry Officer examined three witnesses and marked five exhibits. Based on the enquiry report and the evidence on record, it was concluded that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Respondent No.2 accordingly recommended recovery of Rs.6,62,500/- from the pension payable to the petitioner. The order of penalty dated 14.01.2020, after recording the charge, the petitioner’s reply, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, states as follows: "ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À°è£À «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ D¥Á¢vÀ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À C¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊ©qÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸À/¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£ÀPÀgÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄwÛ®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj C¥Á¢vÀ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢, vÀvÀìA§A¢üvÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 ²¥sÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß CAVÃPÀj¹ ²æà ±ÁåªÀigÁªï «. ªÀÄÄPÀÛzÁgï, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð (ºÁ° ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), PÀ®ÆègÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð vÁ®ÆèPÀÀÄ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À f¯Éè, EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 214(1)(©)gÀr "¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥Áæ¥ÀÛªÁUÀĪÀ ¦AZÀtÂAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ. 6,62,500/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À®Ä ¤tð¬Ä¹zÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ F DzÉñÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: UÁæC¥À/263/UÁæ¥ÀAPÁ/2019 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14-01-2020 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ²æà ±ÁåªÀiïgÁªï «. ªÀÄÄPÀÛzÁgï, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð(ºÁ° ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), PÀ®ÆègÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À f¯Éè, EªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 214(1)(©)gÀr '¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥Áæ¥ÀÛªÁUÀĪÀ ¹AZÀtÂAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.6,62,500/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¹ DzÉò¹zÉ." 10. The order imposing the penalty does not indicate the manner in which the amount of Rs.6,62,500/- has been arrived at. At this stage, the learned Additional Government Advocate invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-A7, which purportedly provides the basis for the quantification of the penalty. However, a perusal of Annexure-A7 reveals a basis for penalty of up to Rs.55,000/-. There is no material on record to justify the quantification of the remaining amount. The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to point out any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 material to support the basis for the portion of the penalty exceeding Rs.55,000/-. 11. In the circumstances noted above, it must be held that the quantification of the penalty by Respondent No.1 is without any basis. In similar cases, this Court ordinarily remands the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh quantification, providing a basis for such calculation. However, we note certain peculiar facts in the present case. The basis for the order of penalty to the extent of Rs.55,000/- is provided as per Annexure-A7, whereas there is no basis for the remaining amount. Further, although Charge No.2 is framed for misappropriation of Rs.5.475 lakhs, there is no evidence on record to prove misappropriation of the said amount, either in the enquiry report or in the order imposing the penalty. 12. Additionally, the petitioner, at the time of filing the application before the Tribunal, was 64 years of age and must now be nearing 70 years. The incident in question relates to the period 2005-06 to 2006-07. Even if the order of penalty were to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, it would cause serious - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36628-DB WP No. 2678 of 2023 inconvenience to the petitioner, who is now advanced in age. In view of the evidence on record, we are inclined to modify the order of penalty. 13. Accordingly, the following; (i) The writ petition is allowed in-part. (ii) The order imposing penalty of Rs.6,62,500/- is set aside and the same is modified to penalty of Rs.55,000/- as indicated in Annexure-A.7. (iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the excess amount of above Rs.55,000/- within two months from the date of uploading of this judgment or from the date of production of this order, whichever earlier. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34