Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J., C.M. JOSHI, JJ.
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Malathi B, W/o B.V. Aruna Kumar - Respondent
WA No. 1577 of 2024
Decided on : 03-09-2025
For the Appellant :SMT. SWAMINI G. MOHANAMBAL, SRI SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent:SRI ABHISHEK N.V, ADVOCATE
Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld indefinitely due to uninitiated disciplinary proceedings, especially if the applicable time limit has expired.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1966 - Regulation 171 - Withholding of pensions - Appeal filed against Single Judge's order to pay retiral benefits - No disciplinary proceedings instituted within the stipulated four-year period - Appellant failed to show cause for withholding benefits. (Paras 3, 8, 9)
(B) Legal principle on disciplinary actions - Requirements for instituting departmental proceedings laid out under the regulations - Absence of action leads to entitlement of employee to benefits. (Paras 3, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an order directing the payment of retiral benefits to the respondent. The respondent's benefits were withheld due to an uninstantiated disciplinary notice regarding alleged financial irregularities that exceeded the four-year institutional time frame.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's decision to mandate payment of retirement benefits based on the upheld regulation was correct as the disciplinary proceedings were not commenced within the mandated four years.
Issues: The core issue was the legality of withholding retirement benefits without timely disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that pensionary benefits cannot be justly withheld indefinitely, especially when the regulatory time frame for instituting disciplinary actions has lapsed.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal regarding withheld retirement benefits. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on the illegality of ongoing disciplinary proceedings. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. court's rationale for dismissing the appeal based on regulatory timeframes. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. final decisions articulating the court's findings. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion of the judgment and disposal of pending applications. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15013/2024 (S-RES), captioned 'Smt.Malathi B v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited'.
2. Respondent No.1 had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that the appellant be directed to pay all retirement benefits, that is, death-cum-retirement gratuity, entitlement for leave encashment benefit and other pensionary benefits along with interest from the date of retirement. The said benefits had not been settled for the reason that a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.1 in the year 2019. However, admittedly disciplinary proceedings had not been commenced. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge found that the retiral benefits could not be withheld on account of any disciplinary proceedings, as the same had not been commenced within a period of four years from the date of the incident.
2. Regulation 171 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations issued in 1966, which is relevant in the present case is set out below:
"Withholding or withdrawal of pensions and recoveries therefrom
171. The Board further reserves to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension, or any part of it, whether permanently, or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole, or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct, or negligence, during the period of his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement; provided that
(a) such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the employee, be deemd to be a proceedings under this Regulation and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service;
(b) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Board.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Board may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service.
(c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a case of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than 4 years before such institution.
(d) Deleted.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this Regulation:
(a) a departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner, or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted;
(i) in the case of a criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and
(ii) in the case of a
