PUTTAMALIGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though, this matter is listed for "Hearing - Interlocutory Application", with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is "Whether the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits with a reference to his date of retirement on 30.06.2008 or not?".

(3.) The petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in the respondent No. 2 - Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and retired on 30.06.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondent No. 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 the irregularities in execution of works during the year 1993-94. Learned counsel submits that one another Officer against whom allegations were made in the same complaint, approached this Court in W.P.No.48571/2014 Reported in in the case of Venkappa Naik.P v. The State of Karnataka and another, 2016 3 KarLJ 99. This Court by order dated 03.02.2016, considered the arguments of the respondent No. 2 - BBMP that under Rule 214 of the KCSR, the Government is justified in withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and the Co-ordinate bench proceeded to examine the provisions of Rule 214 of KCSR. The bench held that a bare perusal of the said Rule clearly reveals that the Government does have the power to either withhold, or withdraw the pension, or part thereof if in any departmental, or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of the misconduct, or negligence during the period of his service. Further it was held that Rule 214 of the Rules defines both the terms 'departmental proceedings' and 'judicial proceedings'. A 'judicial proceedings' is deemed to be instituted in case of criminal proceeding on the date on which the complaint, or the report of the police officer is submitted before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance thereon. Thus, clearly a judicial proceeding cannot be held to be instituted at the stage of an investigation. It was therefore held that the respondents are not justified in claiming that merely because an investigation is pending against the petitioner, by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, his case is covered within the definition of the word 'judicial proceedings' contained in Rule 214 of the Rules.