M D Bannimarad vs The Chief Executive Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 3286 Kant

                              :1:


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

 DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

               W.P. No.68327/2010 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

Sri M.D. Bannimarad,
Age 63 years, R/at No.52, Floora Park,
Amargol, Hubli, Dist.: Dharwad.
Since deceased by his L.Rs.

1(a) Smt. Gouramma Maritammappa Bannimarad,
     Age 62 years, Occ: Household,
     No.52, "Sri Gouri, Floura Park,
     Amargol, Hubballi, Dist.: Dharwad.

1(b) Smt. Annapurna Ravikumar Kajagar,
     Age 43 years, Occ: Household,
     R/o.: Gulaganjikoppa, Gaudar Oni,
     Dharwad.

1(c) Smt. Renuka Shivayogi Kotabagi,
     Age 40 years,
     No.52, 'Sri Gouri' Floura Park,
     Amargol, Hubballi, Dist: Dharwad,
     Insane, represented by petitioner 1(e).

1(d) Smt.Renuka Shivayogi Kotabagi,
     Aged about 40 years, Occ: household,
     r/at Main Road, Morab,
     Tq: Navalgund, Dist: Dharwad.

1(e) Sri Mahantesh
     s/o Maritammappa Bannimarad,
                                :2:


       Aged about 37 years,
       Occ: Lecturer,
       r/at No.52, 'Sri Gouri' Floura Park,
       Amargol, Hubballi, Dist: Dharwad,
       Insane, represented by petitioner 1(e).

                                                 ... Petitioners
(By Sri.Mrutyunjay T. Bangi, Advocate)

AND:

The Chief Executive Officer,
Karnataka State Khadi and Village,
Industries Board, No.10,
Jasma Bhavan Road, Bengaluru-52.
                                                 ... Respondent
(By Sri. G.N. Kademani, Advocate)

      This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of        the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by   the
respondent dated 03.09.2010, copy as per Annexure-T            as
arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to Article 14 of          the
Constitution of India and etc.

      This writ petition coming on for orders regarding hearing
on interlocutory application, this day, the court made the
following:

                             ORDER

The deceased petitioner has challenged the order dated

03.09.2010 passed by the respondent by which the deceased

petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and a sum of

Rs.8,85,000/- was ordered to be recovered from his retirement

benefits. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated

30.10.2010 by which an appeal preferred by him before the

appellate authority was also rejected. The petitioner has

challenged the enquiry report dated 16.09.2005 and 11.12.2006

as capricious. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of

mandamus to release the full pension and other service benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Auditor-cum-

Inspector and was the District Officer of the Karnataka State

Khadi and Village Industries Board and worked at Kolar and

Gadag. He stated that the Government of India through the

Khadi and Village Industries Commission introduced a margin

money scheme to generate employment opportunities in rural

areas by encouraging the establishment of village industries by

providing margin money. The scheme was implemented through

nationalized bank and thereafter though co-operative banks. As

per the said scheme, the industries who were eligible for such

funding was delineated and certain benefits were granted to

people belonging to depressed class, handicap persons, ex-

servicemen etc. While the petitioner was working as a District

Officer at Kolar, he was served with a show-cause notice dated

27.09.2004 calling for an explanation of alleged misappropriation

of margin money by recommending sanction to various non-

existent beneficiaries. The petitioner replied to the notice on

04.10.2004. However, the respondent not satisfied with the

reply, initiated disciplinary action by serving the articles of

charge. Though the petitioner replied to the articles of charge,

the disciplinary authority deemed it appropriate to appoint a

retired District and Sessions Judge as an Enquiry Officer. In the

meanwhile, a complaint was lodged on 30.03.2005 by the Chief

Vigilance Officer, State Bank of Mysore before the Central Bureau

of Investigation about the misappropriation and the role played

by various officers of the department. The Central Bureau of

Investigation had filed a charge sheet before the Court.

3. In the meanwhile, the departmental enquiry

proceeded and the enquiry officer submitted his report on

16.09.2005. The disciplinary authority forwarded the report of

the enquiry officer and called upon the petitioner to submit his

reply. Based on this reply, the disciplinary authority passed an

order dated 16.02.2006 directing the enquiry officer to hold

further enquiry. Thereafter further proceedings were held and a

further enquiry report dated 11.12.2006 was furnished. Following

this, a show-cause notice was issued which was replied by the

petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed an order

compulsorily retiring the petitioner and ordered recovery of

Rs.8,85,000/- from the service benefits of the petitioner. An

appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority

was dismissed. Therefore the petitioner filed this writ petition

challenging the aforesaid order.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the

petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on

record since there was a financial implication. It is stated that

the petitioner was acquitted of the offences in Special

C.C.No.46/2008.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the proposal to grant the benefit under the scheme does not

emanate from his office but the beneficiaries would be selected

directly by the respondent. The application for claiming the

margin money is to be submitted in triplicate, one of which has

to be submitted to the respondent while the other is to be sent

to the district office for verification and the third copy to the

head office of the bank. He submitted that in the present case

the application filed by the alleged beneficiaries was not reported

in the district office and the signature found on the applications

did not correspond to the signature of the petitioner. He invited

the attention of the Court to the judgment in Special

C.C.No.46/2008 where the report of the handwriting expert

indicated that the specimen signature of the petitioner did not

match with the signatures found on the applications. He

submitted that the margin money scheme contemplated that the

amount financed would not be directly paid to the beneficiary,

but infact it would be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the

beneficiary for a period of two years and the interest earned on

such deposit could be utilized for servicing the interest on the

loan raised by such beneficiary. He submitted that the petitioner

had recommended only one case for sanction of the margin

money scheme and not the 13 cases where there were

allegations of misappropriation. The learned counsel submitted

that since the margin money was kept in deposit, there was no

loss to the respondent and therefore the impugned order of

recovery is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the petitioner was the district officer at Kolar

where 13 beneficiaries had availed the margin money scheme.

He submitted that when once such a scheme is availed, the

District Officer is notified of the same and therefore the

petitioner cannot feign ignorance. He submitted that the

petitioner was bound to inspect these beneficiaries and

thereafter recommend their cases for grant of the benefits under

the scheme. He submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner

did not visit any of the beneficiaries to ascertain whether their

request was genuine or not. He submitted that the petitioner did

not even visit the spot even after a show cause notice was issued

by the respondent. He therefore submitted that the enquiry

officer has thoroughly gone into each and every fact and has

rendered a well considered report. He submitted since the

petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty, causing loss to the

respondent, he was rightly retired from service and the amount

of loss was rightly ordered to be recovered from not only the

petitioner but also from the other charge sheeted Development

Officer. He submitted that this Court may therefore not exercise

jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent, this Court would not venture to accept a finding of

fact more particularly, one recorded in a departmental enquiry,

unless such finding is perverse or not based on evidence or the

findings recorded is unconscionable and or actuated by malice.

8. The petitioner was a District Officer of the

respondent at Kolar. Therefore it is hard to accept that the

requests for the benefit of the margin money scheme from

beneficiaries in Kolar District would not be known to the

petitioner, as one set of the application under the scheme would

be forwarded to the District Office. The moment such an

application is filed, he is bound to visit the places to ascertain

whether the request is genuine or not. In the present case, 13

beneficiaries had availed Rs.17,70,000/- under the scheme and

after inspection it was found that none of these beneficiaries

existed and none of them had implemented the project. This

resulted in actual loss to the respondent. Therefore, the

petitioner was clearly guilty of dereliction of duty. The margin

money which was initially kept in a fixed deposit for two years

was later released to the beneficiaries as per the scheme and

even then the petitioner did not raise any objection. The

contention that the petitioner was honourably acquitted in the

criminal case and therefore the impugned departmental enquiry

has to be set at naught is unacceptable as the two proceedings

are distinct and different as held by the Apex Court in Shashi

Bhushan Prasad V/s C.I.S.F., 2019(7) SCC 797. Therefore,

the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from

service does not call for any interference. Likewise the order

directing recovery of a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- from the retirement

benefits of the deceased petitioner is just and proper and does

not call for any interference. In view of the above, this writ

petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK