VENKAPPA NAIK P Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the endorsement dated 18 -9 -2014 passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), whereby he has been denied the payment of his pensionary benefits ostensibly on the ground that an investigation is being conducted against him by the Lokayukta.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 2 -6 -1973 the petitioner had joined the services of BBMP as a Junior Engineer Graduate. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, and then as a Superintendent Engineer. After rendering a service for twenty -six years, on 30 -8 -1999, he retired from the post of Superintendent Engineer. Instead of paying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the respondent 2 -BBMP, withheld the pensionary benefits ostensibly on the ground that a complaint had been made against the petitioner, and two others, with regard to irregularities in execution of works during the year 1993 -94. The complaint related to the execution of Ejipura Residential Quarters. According to the complainant, the Ejipura Residential Apartments were to be constructed for economically weaker sections of the society. However, there were certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, and two other employees, of the Corporation. On 13 -4 -2005, a charge -sheet was furnished to the petitioner with regard to the said complaint. On 10 -1 -2006, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The other two employees who were aggrieved by the issuance of charge -sheets to them filed Writ Petition No. 15099 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 6070 of 2006 before this Court. This Court granted an interim stay of the enquiry proceedings. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, respondent 1, referred the matter to the Honourable Lokayukta. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings were dropped against the petitioner and others. On 10 -12 -2010, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for release of his pensionary benefits. However, by an endorsement dated 21 -2 -2011, the respondent 2 rejected the petitioner's representation inter alia on the ground that the investigation being conducted by the Honourable Lokayukta falls within the definition of "judicial proceedings" as contained in Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Sendees Rules ('KCSR' for short). Not satisfied with the rejection, the petitioner again made a representation on 21 -10 -2013. By the impugned endorsement dated 18 -9 -2014, his representation again has been rejected on the same ground. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B.B. Bajentri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that presently the matter is merely being investigated by the Honourable Lokayukta and no charge -sheet has been filed against the petitioner before any Criminal Court. Therefore, the respondents are unjustified in claiming that the investigation would fall within the definition of the words "judicial proceedings" as contained in Rule 214 of the KCSR. According to the learned Counsel, a "judicial proceeding" is said to be instituted only after a charge -sheet has been filed before the Criminal Court. However, that is not the situation in the present case. Hence, the respondents are not justified in withholding the petitioner's pensionary benefits.