The petitioner, a retired First Division Assistant of the

Second respondent-Board (for short <Board=) is before this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

questioning the correctness and legality of the order bearing

No.PÀdªÀÄ:ºÉZïDgïr.6:E«:¹Dgï.169/2804/2014-15

dated

29.12.2014

(Annexure-F) by which, punishment of withholding 10% of

pension for a period of 3 years is imposed and the appellate

order bearing No.PÀdªÀÄ:ºÉZïDgïr.6:E«:¹Dgï.169/736/2015-16 dated

16.06.2015, confirming the order of punishment.

3

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj for petitioner,

learned counsel Sri.C.Channegowda for respondent No.2 as

well as Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned AGA for respondent

No.1. Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner retired from the 2^nd respondent-Board as First

Division Assistant on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.10.2011. Subsequent to his retirement, under Annexure-

A, a show-cause notice/charge memo dated 28.11.2011 was

issued

alleging

shortage

in

stores

materials

worth

Rs.12,55,187/- and further alleged that the petitioner has

failed to submit reconciliation of stores account for the period

from 22.10.1998 to 14.02.2005. Not being satisfied with the

reply submitted by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent-Board

appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the

charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his report dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-B) holding

that the charge of shortage of store materials to the tune of

4

Rs.12,55,187/- is not proved, but, held that the charge

against the petitioner of not maintaining proper accounts of

the stores proved. The petitioner was issued with second

show-cause notice dated 15.07.2014 enclosing a copy of the

report of the Enquiry, to which, the petitioner is said to have

submitted his reply on 04.08.2014 (Annexure-D). Thereafter,

the impugned order dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure-F) was

passed imposing punishment of withholding 10% of pension

for a period of 3 years in exercise of power under Rule

214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short

<KCSRs=). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an

appeal before the Managing Director. The appellate authority

under Annexure-J/endorsement dated 16.06.2015 rejected

the appeal of the petitioner. Challenging both the order

passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate

Authority, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ

petition.

5

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

under Annexure-A/charge memo it was alleged that the

petitioner is responsible for shortage of store materials to the

tune of Rs.12,55,187/- which is not proved in the enquiry.

Referring to Annexure-B, enquiry report, learned counsel

would submit that there is clear finding that the charge

against the petitioner with regard to shortage of store

materials is not proved. Further, he submits that the charge

against the petitioner that he has failed to properly maintain

accounts of the Stores is held to be proved. He submits that

there is no material or evidence to prove the said charge.

Moreover, to impose punishment of reduction of pension,

there must be finding by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the

Disciplinary Authority that the delinquent official or petitioner

has committed grave misconduct. Unless there is finding of

grave misconduct reduction of pension is impermissible.

5.

Further, learned counsel would contend that the

enquiry against the petitioner itself was not maintainable in

6

view of the fact that the charge memo is contrary to Rule

214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Referring to charge memo dated

28.11.2011 (Annexure-A), learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the charge memo is issued subsequent to

retirement of petitioner i.e. 31.10.2011 and the charge relates

to the period from 22.10.1998 to 14.02.2005. Referring to

Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, learned counsel would subm