The State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Sri Annappa S Jamadar And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 3241 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Sri Annappa S Jamadar And Anr on 15 April, 2026

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                                 -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
                                                         WP No. 201871 of 2021


                    HC-KAR



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                               PRESENT
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                                                AND
                          THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                             WRIT PETITION NO.201871 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                        FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
                        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                        BENGALURU-560001.
                   2.   THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
                        IN KARNATAKA (PENSION)
                        KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
                        BENGALURU-560001.
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN      1.   SRI. ANNAPPA S. JAMADAR
MALAGHAN                S/O SAYABANNA JAMADAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
KARNATAKA               OCC: RETIRED FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
                        R/O: NO.140, NGO COLONY,
                        BEHIND GULBARGA UNIVERSITY,
                        KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI-585106.
                   2.   THE REGISTRAR,
                        KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
                        M.S.BUILDING,
                        BENGALURU-560001.

                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. GHATE KONDIBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                       SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                     -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
                                              WP No. 201871 of 2021


HC-KAR



         THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED         ORDER      DATED     05/03/2020      IN     APPLICATION
NO.3106/2019 AS AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT KALABURAGI AND
ETC.,
         THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
             and
             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The State is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

"To issue a writ of certiorari any other writ or direction to quash the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 in Application No.3106/2019 as at Annexure-A passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, at Kalaburagi."

2. Respondent No.1 having been imposed with a penalty of withholding pensionary benefits to the extent of 50% had challenged the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'KSAT') in Application No.3106/2019. In the KSAT by its order dated 05.03.2020 allowed the application on two grounds.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB

HC-KAR

3. Firstly, that there is no compliance with Rule 214(1)

(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCS Rules'), for the reason that the disciplinary authority in its order dated 15.02.2019 had not adverted to or found respondent No.1 guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service.

4. Secondly, that the second show cause notice had not been issued before imposing the penalty.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge against the respondent No.1 being one of corruption, that by itself is a grave misconduct and there is no particular finding required to be given by the disciplinary authority as regards grave misconduct and matters relating to corruption. Secondly, insofar as a second show cause notice is concerned, the same is remediable, if the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority, a second show cause notice would be issued.

6. The aspect of considering the second submission would only arise if the first submission where to be accepted.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB

HC-KAR

7. Rule 214(1)(a) of the KCS Rules reads as under :-

"214 (1) (a) 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."

8. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, can only be made if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service. It is therefore, required that there is an order which is passed appreciating this aspect and the disciplinary authority comes to a categorical conclusion that there is a grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. Though, corruption is a misconduct, it was for the disciplinary authority to arrive at a categorical conclusion that it is a grave misconduct or negligence which requires an application of mind by the disciplinary authority, giving raise to such a finding.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB

HC-KAR

9. In the present case, admittedly there is no such finding by the disciplinary authority as regards grave misconduct or negligence, except to come to a finding that there is misconduct by the delinquent employee. There is a difference between grave misconduct and misconduct perse. More particularly when it relates to withholding or withdrawing a pension after the employee who has superannuated.

10. It is for that reason there is specific provision made in the KCS Rules in terms of Rule 214 (1) (a) requiring that before such withholding or withdrawing of pension is made, there is finding arrived at that the employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. The Disciplinary Authority, being well versed in these matters, being aware of the requirements of Rule 214 (1) (a) has chosen not to come to a conclusion that the employee is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, which would only mean that insofar as that provision is concerned, the finding is in favour of the employee.

11. Such being the case, without such a conclusion or a finding being arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the question of withholding or withdrawing a pension would not arise, which is what has been rightly appreciated by the KSAT. We do not find any infinity in the said matter.