JUDGMENT :

Mr. Alok Aradhe, J. - This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated 10.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee' for short) joined the services of Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for short) on 24.09.1980. The employee was promoted from time to time. On 16.06.2007 the employee was caught red handed by the Lokayukta for accepting the bribe. The employee was placed under suspension on 02.07.2007 and a charge sheet was issued to him on 02.01.2012. A criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also instituted against the employee.

3. It is not in dispute that employee was acquitted in the criminal case by an order dated 30.11.2011. However, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him is still pending. The employee attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. Thereafter, by an order dated 01.06.2012, the Company held the employee to be entitled to only 75% of pensionary and other retiral benefits, in view of pendency of the proceeding against him.

4. The employee thereafter, submitted a representation on 05.07.2012 seeking payment of pension and other retiral benefits in its entirety. However, the representation submitted by the employee failed to evoke any response. The employee therefore, filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.805/2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 31.01.2013 with the direction to the Company to consider the representation in accordance with law. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, by an endorsement dated 22.07.2013, the claim of the employee was rejected.

5. The employee challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition. A learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 10.09.2018 inter alia held that employee has a fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to receive the pensionary and retiral benefits. It was further held that the employee was entitled to receive 100% pensionary benefits along with interest within a period of three months. However, liberty was reserved to the Company to enforce the order against the employee, which may be passed in the criminal case, in the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the Company has invited the attention of this court to Regulations 171 and 172 of the KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) and has submitted the.t the same provide for withholding or withdrawal of pension in case of an employee who faces departmental or judicial proceeding. It is pointed out that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid Regulations. It is further submitted that the Regulations have a statutory force and the learned Single Judge has issued a direction which amounts to compelling the Company to act in contravention of law. It is pointed out that disciplinary proceeding is still pending against the employee. (n support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of this court in ' G.M.Kunte v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. ' , ILR 2003 KAR 3851 and a decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in State of West Bengal v. Subhash Kumar Chatterjee ' , (2010) 11 SCC 694 '.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employee has submitted that the Company cannot be permitted to withhold the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as well as the pension. It is further submitted that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Company. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has granted the liberty to the company to enforce the order which may be passed against the employee in the criminal case. It is therefore, contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge does not call for any int