- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 25093 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KENGEGOWDA S/O LATE SOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BILL COLLECTOR ATTAVARA HOSAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573118 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 2. GRAMA PANCHAYATH ATTAVARA HOSAHALLI DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573118 REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M S DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASEQUASH THE LETTER DTD 8.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE R1, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A BY DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED AS ON DUTY BETWEEN 1.1.2008 TO 17.9.2018 AND AS SUCH, IS ENTITLED FOR ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF SALARY AND PROMOTIONDIRECT R1 TO PASS ORDERS TO TREAT THE PETITION AS ON SERVICE BETWEEN 1.1.2008 TO 17.9.2018 AND AS SUCH, IS ENTITLED FOR ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 24.1.2019 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following prayer: (a) writ of certiorari quashing the letter bearing No.4 :  ಪಂ ಾ: ಅ ; (1) ಉ. ಾ . ೆಂೇೌಡ/150/19-20 dated 8/6/2023 issued by the 1st respondent, produced as ANNEXURE-A by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be considered as on duty between 1/1/2008 to 17/9/2018 and as such, is entitled for all consequential benefits - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 including payment of arrears of salary and promotion; (b) writ of mandamus to direct 1st respondent to pass orders to treat the petitioner as on service between 1/1/2008 to 17/9/2018 and as such, is entitled for all consequential benefits as per the representation dated 24/1/2019 true copy of which is produced as ANNEXURE-C; and (c) grant such other relief as the Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of this petition, in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Bill collector by the second respondent on 01.08.1988. The allegation was made against the petitioner by name Shivanna to the Lokayuktha police at Hassan on 16.11.2007, stating that the petitioner demanded ₹1,500/- from him in connection with effecting khata of a property. The petitioner was kept under suspension from service. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges in S.C.No.7 of 2009 vide judgment dated 26.05.2012. The second respondent has passed a resolution to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 aggrieved by the order of dismissal, preferred an appeal before first respondent. The first respondent- appellate authority, set aside the order of dismissal and directed second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. The second respondent reinstated the petitioner as a Bill collector without giving any consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent to give service benefits. The first Respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the second respondent preferred a writ petition in WP No.14073/2019. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2022 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks taking note of Rule 99 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short ‘KCSR’ Rules) and regulate the period during which the petitioner was out of service - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 including the period of suspension i.e., from 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2018. Respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner declining to grant service benefits. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in CCC No. 530 of 2023 and got dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the first respondent, filed this writ petition. 4. Respondent No.1 filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is contended that Shivanna lodged a complaint to the Lokayukta police, Hassan, against the petitioner stating that the petitioner had demanded ₹1,500/- from him in connection with effecting of khata of the property. It is also contended that the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case. It is contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide resolution dated 04.07.2014. The said resolution was challenged by the petitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. While setting aside the order of dismissal, the appellate authority has not recorded any findings in regard to the service benefits. While passing an order by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has not recorded any finding in regard to service benefits. 5. The petitioner submitted a representation to first respondent to give service benefits. The first respondent issued an endorsement declining to consider the request of the petitioner regarding payment of service benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court in WP No.14073 of 2019 and the said writ petition came to be allowed and remitted the matter to the first appellate authority. It is contended that the appellate authority has passed an order vide Annexure-A. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached this court in WP No. 14073 of 2019, wherein this court has remitted the matter to the appellate authority to reconsider the case regarding service benefits taking note of Rule 99 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and regulate the period during which the petitioner was out of service including the period of suspension from 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2018. The appellate authority without considering the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid petition has passed the impugned order. The appellate authority has failed to consider Rule 99 of KCSR Rules and committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and he submits that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 there are rules of 2020. As per the Rules of 2020, the appellate authority considered the said Rules, and has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the employee of the second respondent. One Shivanna lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Lokayukta police, Hassan and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in SC No.7 of 2009, vide judgment dated 26.02.2012. The second respondent passed a resolution after the disposal of the criminal case in SC No. 7 of 2009. The second respondent has passed a resolution on 04.07.2014 dismissing the petitioner from service. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service approached the first respondent by preferring an appeal. 11. The first respondent has passed the order, allowed the appeal in part and quashed the order of termination and directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. Pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent, the second respondent has reinstated the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation to pay service benefits wherein the second respondent has issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner is not entitled for service benefits. 12. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the second respondent approached this Court in WP No. 14073 of 2019. This court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.11.2022. The Co-ordinate bench while disposing of the said writ petition, the court has recorded its finding which reads as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 “The appellate authority is silent with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for back wages and that the appellate authority has failed to regulate the period from 01.01.2008, the date on which the petitioner was kept under suspension, up to 17.09.2018, the date on which he was reinstated into service as a Bill collector. It was the duty of the appellate authority to set aside the order of dismissal to pass a specific order, with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for back wages during the period, for which he was out of service. 2020 Rules or Section 113 of 1993 Act are silent with regard to regulating the period for which an employee of Panchayath would be out of service. When the Rules are silent with regard to a particular action, it is for the authorities to fall back on to KCSR. Rule 99 of KCSR provides for regulating the period, when a government servant who is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated into service, as a result of an appeal or review, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 his absence from the duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and whether or not the said period shall be treated as period has spent on duty. KCSR makes it abundantly clear that appellate authority shall pass appropriate order regulating the period during which government servant is out of service. In the instant case, the appellate authority has exercised its power under Section 113 of the 1993 Act and set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner. While setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner, the appellate authority ought to have passed a specific order with regard to regulating the period or otherwise, during which the petitioner was out of service. Thus, the appellate authority has failed to perform its duty. The said writ petition came to be allowed and the appellate authority was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks and while passing the order to take note of Rule 99 of KCSRs Rules and regulate the period during which the petitioner was out of service including - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 the period of suspension from 01.01.2008 to 17.09.2018”. 13. This court has specifically recorded its finding of fact and directed the appellate authority to take note of Rule 99 of the KCSRs Rules. The first respondent without taking note of Rule 99 of KCSR has passed an impugned order. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are Rules of 2020, the Co-ordinate bench in the said writ petition held that KCSR’s Rules are not applicable to the respondents. In the said petition, this Court has already recorded its finding that Rules of 2020 or Section 113 of 1993 Act, are silent with regard to regulating the period for which an employee of Panchayat would be out of service. The findings recorded in the aforesaid petition has attained a finality. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed in W.P.No.14073 of 2019. Thus, the order passed by the first respondent is not in compliance with the observation made by the writ - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 court in WP No. 14073 of 2019. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is contrary to the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence on these grounds, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned letter vide Annexure A is hereby quashed. iii. The respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the observation made by this court in WP No. 14073 of 2019 and also in terms of Rule 99 of the KCSR’s Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26431 WP No. 25093 of 2023 iv. Pending interlocutory application/s, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS