Karnataka High Court
The Registrar General vs Sri K Munuswamy Naidu S/O Late K. ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
WA No. 100118 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100118 OF 2024 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELLARY-583101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K.MUNUSWAMY NAIDU,
S/O. LATE K. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B RESIDING AT YERRITHATA COLONY,
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
BHAVYA NILAYA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OPP. TO SHARADA CLINIC,
DHARWAD
BENCH
BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
Date: 2025.08.05
11:07:43 +0530
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANDISH
PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO PLEASED TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.14368 OF 2012 (S-DE), SET ASIDE
THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO FULL PENSION FROM THE DATE OF COMPULSORY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
WA No. 100118 of 2024
HC-KAR
RETIREMENT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
This intra-Court appeal by the respondents in W.P.
No.14368/2012 takes exception to the impugned order dated
08.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge who partly
allowed the writ petition in terms of the impugned order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the material on
record.
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are
as under:
i) The respondent herein was working as a Shirestedar
in the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete,
against whom a disciplinary enquiry was initiated which resulted
in an enquiry report dated 03.01.2012 pursuant to which, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
Disciplinary Authority, who was the Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Ballari, exercised its powers under Rule 17 and 18 of the
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules' for short), and
imposed punishment of compulsory retirement together with
reduction of 1/3rd of invalid pension as directed in the said order
which reads as under:
"In Exercise of the powers conferred under rule 11 and rule
8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957 this Disciplinary Authority is hereby imposed
penalty of compulsory retirement to Sri. K.Munuswamy Naidu,
the delinquent official with immediate effect.
The order of suspension stands cancelled with immediate
effect and the period of suspension is to be treated as such.
Further in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 218
of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 pension at the rate
of 2/3rd of the invalid pension admissible, rounded off to nearest
rupee is granted to the delinquent official.
The seized amount is to be confiscated to the Government
after appeal period is over."
ii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority directing compulsory retirement and also
withholding of 1/3rd of invalid pension, the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
approached this Court in W.P. No.14368/2012. The said petition
having been contested by the appellants herein, the learned
Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the
petition in part by confirming the order of punishment of
compulsory retirement, but setting aside the order of withholding
of 1/3rd of invalid pension, as directed by the Disciplinary
Authority.
4. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that
the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing
compulsory retirement has not been challenged by the
respondent-Shirestedar and the same has attained finality and
become conclusive and binding between the parties. It follows
therefrom that the limited consideration in the present appeal is
as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting
aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding
1/3rd of invalid pension as directed in the said order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would invite our
attention to Rule 218 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules 1958
in order to contend that, by virtue of the said Rules, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
Disciplinary Authority was empowered to reduce 1/3rd of the
invalid pension in terms of Note 1, and having regard to the facts
and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the Disciplinary
Authority was fully justified in reducing 1/3rd pension payable to
the respondent and the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge without considering the above said provision or the
material on record deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
Shirestedar would also invite our attention to the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority in order to point out that except the
operative portion of the said order, in which the Disciplinary
Authority purports to reduce 1/3rd of the invalid pension, in the
preceding body of the said order, there are absolutely no reasons
assigned by the Disciplinary Authority as to why 1/3rd pension
was being reduced and consequently, the learned Single Judge
was fully justified in passing the impugned order which does not
warrant interference by this Court in the writ appeal and liable to
be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
7. Before adverting to rival submission, it would be
necessary to extract Rule 218 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules,
which reads as under:
"218. A Government servant compulsorily retired from
service as a penalty may be granted by the authority
competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not
less than two-thirds of the invalid pension and not more
than full invalid pension admissible to him on the date of
his compulsory retirement.
Note 1.- The intention, is that persons on whom the
penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed should
ordinarily be granted the full invalid pension and Death-
cum-Retirement Gratuity, if any, admissible on the date of
compulsory retirement. Where, however, the
circumstances of a particular case so warrant, the
authority, competent to impose the penalty of compulsory
retirement, may subject to the orders of the appellate or
Revising Authority, make such reductions in the
pensionary benefits within the limits prescribed, as it may
think appropriate. A reduction may be made either in the
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity or in the Pension or in
both. The reduction to be made in the pension shall be in
whole rupees only.
Note 2.-Provisional pension may be authorised
immediately after Government servants are compulsorily
retired under this rule, withholding, however, the D.C.R.G.
till the final pension order is issued."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
8. A bare perusal of Note 1. appended to Rule 218 will
clearly indicate that it is only after coming to the conclusion that
circumstances of a particular case warrants, after arriving at a
objective satisfaction of the material available, that it would be
appropriate to reduce the pension and only thereafter, the
Disciplinary Authority would be entitled to reduce pension to
1/3rd of invalid pension in terms of the said provision; as rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, perusal of
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is sufficient to
come to the conclusion that except in the operative portion of
the said order, there is absolutely no reference whatsoever to
Rule 218 of the Rules, ingredients or circumstances warranting
invocation of the said provision so as to reduce the pension
payable to the respondent to 2/3rd by deducting 1/3rd as directed
in the operative portion of the said order. In other words, in the
absence of any reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority
highlighting warranting invocation of Rule 218 of KCSRs or by
deeming it appropriate to reduce the pension payable to the
respondent to 2/3rd, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single judge was fully justified in taking into account the
facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case including
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9675-DB
HC-KAR
the undisputed fact that the respondent was about to
compulsory retire at the fag end of service and as also fact that
he has now attained the age of superannuation and has
withdrawn the entire pension in pursuance of the same. Under
these circumstances, in the absence of any error of jurisdiction
or illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting
interference in the present appeal, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, it is
confirmed.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
KMS
