Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, JJ.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mallikarjun S/o. Neelappa savanur – Respondent
WA No. 100422 of 2023
Decided on : 16-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA FOR SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVS.)
For the Respondent:SRI.SANTOSH B MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE
The power to withhold pension is contingent upon the existence of pecuniary loss to the employer, and judicial proceedings must be instituted by the employer to permit withholding of pension.
Headnote:
Pension - Interpretation of Regulations 171 and 172 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [Regulations 171, 172, PC Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, sought payment of pension, which was withheld by the Corporation due to pending criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the Corporation to release the pension in its entirety.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power to withhold pension under Regulation 172 is contingent upon the existence of pecuniary loss to the employer, and that judicial proceedings must be instituted by the employer, not a third party, to permit withholding of pension.
Issues: Interpretation of Regulations 171 and 172, withholding of pension due to pending criminal proceedings, and the authority to institute judicial proceedings under Regulation 171.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to withhold pension under Regulation 172 is subject to the condition of pecuniary loss to the employer, and judicial proceedings must be instituted by the employer to permit withholding of pension.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal stands rejected, affirming the Single Judge's decision to release the pension in its entirety to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
The appellant-KPTCL has called in question the correctness of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in WP No.104770/2022 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the petitioner-retired employee had challenged the order of Corporation withholding the pension, which writ petition came to be allowed directing the appellant/Corporation to settle/disburse all retirement benefits to the petitioner expeditiously.
2. The parties are referred to by their rankings before the learned Single Judge for the purpose of convenience.
3. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2022 upon attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, on 9.4.2018, FIR came to be registered by the ACB police against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) on the basis of a complaint at the instance of a complainant (third party) and not on a complaint by the employer. It is further made out from the facts that the petitioner was suspended and subsequently, however, was reinstated.
4. The petitioner, after attaining the age of superannuation, had sought for payment of pension to which, an endorsement came to be passed on 28.06.2022, wherein the respondent/Corporation, who is the employer, sanctioned only 50% of his pension in the nature of provisional pension in terms of Regulation 172(1) of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations, 1996 (for short, ‘Regulations, 1996’) w.e.f. 1.6.2022 in light of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
5. It is made out from the facts that subsequently charge sheet was filed by the ACB on 6.8.2022 and cognizance was taken by the Special Court in Special A.C.B. in C.C. No.6/2022 as regards the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The endorsement sanctioning only 50% of the pension came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge, who by a detailed consideration, has upheld the contention of the petitioner and quashed the endorsement while directing the respondent/Corporation to release the pension in favour of the petitioner in its entirety.
6. The learned Single Judge had specifically observed that the petitioner had not caused any pecuniary loss taking note of the judgment of this Court in the case of L. Narasegowda Vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, 2014 SCC Online Kar 12629 wherein it was held that where the proceedings do not relate to any pecuniary loss by the employee, power under Regulation 172 of the Regulations 1996 could not be exercised and has proceeded to set-aside the endorsement. The said order is challenged by the Corporation before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/Corporation has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on various grounds including that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in recording a finding that the pecuniary loss is required to be established for the purpose of withholding the pension. It is submitted that such restriction cannot be read into Regulation 172. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, KPTCL Corporate Office Vs. Boregowda & Another, WA No.3251/2018 wherein under similar circumstances, the Court has upheld the power under Regulation 172 for withholding of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as well as pension. It is further contended that the interpretation of Regulations 171 and 172 ought to be done on the basis of the said Regulations and it would not be permissible to travel beyond the plain language by importing the language of similar regulations covering an identical aspect in other establishments which are however worded differently.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/employee, on the other hand, would contend that the only manner of interpreting the Regulations is that the power of withholding pens
