Karnataka High Court
Sri P Shivanna vs State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2025
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
WP No. 4696 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4696 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA,
RETIRED TAHASILDAR,
R/AT NO.2045, 7TH MAIN, D BLOCK,
3RD CROSS, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. U PANDURANGA NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHETAN B C REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE-3)
HIGH COURT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
P.B. NO.5329, ANNEXE BUILDING,
PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B J ESWARAPPA.,AGA)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
WP No. 4696 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.3459/2021 BY SET-ASIDING THE
ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order
dated 18.01.2022 whereby, his Application No.3459/2021
having been dismissed, the order of punishment of
withholding his pension for a period of two years has been
confirmed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
vehemently submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in not
duly considering competence of the Disciplinary Authority
to institute proceedings post-retirement for an event of
pre-superannuation; even otherwise, withholding of
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
pension by way of recovery or otherwise is not permissible
in view of Apex Court decision in STATE OF PUNJAB vs.
RAFIQ MASIH1. Learned AGA appearing for the official
respondents makes submission in justification of the
impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed. He relies upon a Coordinate Bench decision in
W.P.No.8296/2023 between SRI.BASAVARAJ
MENASHINAKAI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off
on 19.11.2024, one of us being author of the said
judgment.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence
in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of
learned AGA which accords with the reasoning of the
Tribunal. As to competence of initiating disciplinary
enquiry post-retirement, matter is no longer res integra.
Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSR reads as under:
AIR 2015 SC 696
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
"Withholding or withdrawing pension for
misconduct or negligence.-
The Government reserve to themselves the right
of either withholding or withdrawing a pension
or part thereof, either permanently or for a
specified period, if in any departmental or
judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during
the period of his service including the service
under a foreign employer and the service
rendered upon re-employment after
retirement."
Even in respect of an event that happened during
employment of a delinquent, there can be disciplinary
enquiry post-retirement provided that it is within the
limitation period of four years. Obviously, the incident on
the basis of which disciplinary proceedings are initiated
falls within that period. Therefore, the question as to
competence of holding disciplinary enquiry post-retirement
is answered in the affirmative and against the petitioner.
4. The second contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that pension cannot be withheld or that no
recovery can be made from the pension of a retiree,
cannot be sustained. If there can be disciplinary enquiry
against a retiree, there can be recovery by way of
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
punishment, from the pension also. In Basavaraj
Menashinakai supra, this court has taken the view that the
definition of pension includes DCRG and therefore, even
recovery can be made from DCRG. The reliance of
petitioner on Rafiq Masih supra is misplaced, since it was a
case relating to recovery of what was paid in excess of
entitlement. What weighed with the Apex Court in the said
decision was the predicament of lower strata employees,
against whom no fraud, fabrication or such other
misconduct was alleged. It hardly needs to be stated that
a case is an authority for the proposition that it actually
lays down in the given fact matrix of the case and not for
all that which would logically follow from what has been so
laid down vide QUINN vs. LEATHEM2.
5. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents is right
in telling us that the disciplinary proceedings having been
competently and properly held, with the participation of
the petitioner, the order of punishment has been rightly
[1901] A.C. 495
NC: 2025:KHC:11604-DB
made and therefore, this court exercising extraordinary
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot undertake a deeper
examination, as a general rule of prudence. We need not
tell that this court is not sitting in appeal over the decision
of Tribunal or the punishment order of the Disciplinary
Authority.
In the above circumstances, this petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed,
costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
cbc
