M MUNIVENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from service as an Executive Engineer with the second respondent Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2001.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and five others by a notice dated 30.10.2000, on the allegation that certain road repairs were got executed unauthorisedly resulting in a cost overrun and thereby causing loss to the Corporation. THE petitioner had denied the charges. However, the third respondent had proceeded to frame common charges against the petitioner and five others and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. THE Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. THE petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report, to which he had made a representation dated 11.9.2003, pointing out that the enquiry was vitiated for reasons stated therein, and requested that the proceedings be closed and his pensionary benefits be released.

(3.) SHRI. Vijayakumar for SHRI. B.B. Bajentri, Advocate for the petitioner, would urge the following: That the first respondent by the 1991 Rules has adopted and applied the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, which are applicable to the State Government servants, to the employees of the respondent. Sub-Rule (f) of Rule 2 of 1991 Rules provides as follows: (f) All words and expressions used in these rules, but not defined shall have the same meaning assigned to it in the KCSRs. as amended from time to time; provided that the expression Government Servant/s, Head of the Department, Government or Governor wherever they occur in the Rules mentioned in Rule 4 of these Rules shall respectively mean "an employee", "Commissioner or any of his nominee" and "Government in Housing and Urban Development Department. Rule 4 modifies the application of the above Rules to the extent that the powers of Heads of Government Departments are delegated to the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation and the powers exercisable by the Government are vested in the Housing and Urban Development Department. The counsel would further submit that Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules is made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. Rule 214 is extracted below: 214(1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence: The Full-time reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof; whether 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. (b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension: The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a foreign employer under whom the Government servant has worked on deputation or otherwise, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Provided that the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum pension prescribed under the Rules. A combined reading of the 1991 Rules and Rule 214 would indicate that the power to pass orders to recover any loss caused to a City Corporation is vested in the Government, the first respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is violative of Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. It is contended that the impugned order draws attention to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.294/ 2002, wherein it was held that by virtue of a Corrigendum dated 23.3.1993, the third respondent had the power to impose minor penalty including the penalty of recovery of loss caused to the Corporation. The counsel would point out that the petitioner having retired from service, the rules regulating disciplinary action would cease to apply to him. It follows that, notwithstanding the Corrigendum above referred to, the third respondent cannot exercise the powers either under the Conduct Rules or the CCA Rules to recover the alleged loss. It is also contended that the above position is further fortified by the fact that the first respondent had in fact issued a direction to the third respondent, during the pendency of contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner before this Court in CCC 966/2004, to drop all proceedings against the petitioner and to release his retiral benefits and to recover any amounts due from him by recourse to an independent civil suit. The impugned order is hence contrary to the said direction.