M.G SHIVAJI RAO vs SRINIVAS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.274 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M.G SHIVAJI RAO
S/O GOVINDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1020/946
RD
ARKANATHA ROAD, 3 CROSS
K.R.NAGAR - 571 602, MYSURU DISTRICT …COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRINIVAS, CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (KSTDC)
GROUND FLOOR, BMTC,
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND,
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 022
2. K V RAJENDRA, IAS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (KSTDC)
GROUND FLOOR, BMTC,
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND,
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 022
3. PARASHIVA MURTHY
GENERAL MANAGER (F),
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSTDC)
GROUND FLOOR, BMTC,
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND,
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 022
Digitally
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
4. RAMESH BABU, KAS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (KSTDC)
GROUND FLOOR, BMTC,
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND,
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 022
5. DEVARAJU
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HOTELS),
KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (KSTDC)
GROUND FLOOR, BMTC,
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND,
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 022
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W RULE 3
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT
PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO
ORDER THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR
WILLFULLY DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY VIOLATING THE
JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 25.06.2024 (ANNEXURE-A)
PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP NO.38110/2016.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, JAYANT BANERJI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and
learned counsel appearing for accused.
2. Pursuant to previous orders passed by the Court,
the accused are present in Court.
- 3 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
3. This contempt petition is filed alleging wilful
disobedience of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2024
passed by this Court in W.P.No.38110/2016.
4. By the judgment, non-compliance of which is
alleged in this petition, the learned Single Judge held the
dismissal of the petition therein to be disproportionate given
the scope of his responsibilities while acknowledging the
negligence of the petitioner-complainant. W.P.No.44483/2012
was dismissed, but the writ petition, the order which is said to
be not complied with i.e., W.P.No.38110/2016 was allowed in
part and the penalty of dismissal of service of the petitioner-
complainant by respondent No.1 therein was set aside. He was
held entitled for all consequential benefits. However, the
recovery against the petitioner-complainant was affirmed. All
pending IA’s stood disposed of.
5. An affidavit was filed on 17.11.2025 by Sri.Prashant
Kumar Mishra, Managing Director of KSTDC, enumerating the
compliance steps taken by the respondent/Corporation. It is
stated therein that the case was reviewed following the order of
the Hon’ble High Court and it was determined that
reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement for full
back wages or all service benefits unless there is complete
- 4 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
exoneration. It was noted that the High Court had affirmed the
monetary penalty implying that there was partial
blameworthiness. Consequently, the Competent Authority
issued a speaking order treating the period of suspension and
dismissal as not on duty.
6. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was disbursed to the
petitioner-complainant pursuant to the Hon’ble Court’s order in
writ petition, which the accused has fully complied with. It is
stated that the payment was made without prejudice to the
final determination of service benefits under the applicable
Rules. Back wages was denied.
7. A memo dated 28.01.2026 was filed by the
Advocate for the accused stating therein that a letter had been
written to the Provident Fund Authority requesting the
Authorities to release the Provident Fund dues to the petitioner-
complainant. A copy of the letter is enclosed with the memo.
8. It appears that thereafter an application
I.A.No.1/2026 was filed before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.38110/2016, on which, on 03.09.2026 the following
order was passed:
“…………………………………………………………………………..
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the
application and submits that the order dated
- 5 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
25.06.2024 is clear and unambiguous and that the
petitioner is entitled to all benefits flowing from said
order.
4. Having considered the rival submissions, it
would be apposite to extract the relevant finding
recorded by this Court in paragraph 11 of the order
dated 25.06.2024, which reads as follows:
“11. In contrast, the manager’s role as
established by evidence do not encompass
direct involvement in financial transactions.
While negligence on his part is acknowledged,
particularly in failing to scrutinize the actions
of subordinates more closely, the severity of
dismissal of service is deemed excessive. This
Court is of the view that there is no evidence
to suggest that Manager was tasked with
cross verifying accounts which falls squarely
within the FDAs purview. Therefore, while the
Manager (petitioner in W.P.No.38110/2016)
may have been negligent in not scrutinizing
the actions of FDA more closely, it cannot be
deemed disproportionate to dismiss the
Manager from service solely on the ground of
negligence.
5. The aforesaid finding makes it clear that this
Court did not completely exonerate the petitioner of
negligence. On the contrary, a specific finding was
recorded that the petitioner was negligent in not
scrutinizing the actions of the concerned employee
more closely, though such negligence was held
insufficient to sustain the extreme penalty of
dismissal.
6. Therefore, the expression all consequential
benefits occurring in the operative portion of the order
dated 25.06.2024 has to be understood in the context
of the findings recorded therein. The said expression
cannot be construed as an automatic direction for
payment of back wages for the period during which
the petitioner did not render service.
- 6 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
7. It is well settled that back wages do not follow
automatically upon setting aside an order of dismissal
or directing reinstatement. The entitlement to back
wages depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case, including the nature of the misconduct and
the conduct of the employee. The judgments relied
upon by the respondent reiterate this settled principle.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed. It is hereby
clarified that the petitioner is entitled to the
consequential service benefits flowing from the order
dated 25.06.2024, including continuity of service and
benefits consequential thereto, but is not entitled to
claim back wages/salary for the period during which
he did not render service pursuant to the order of
dismissal.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the accused
therefore is that the learned Single Judge had clarified his own
order and has held that the petitioner-complainant is entitled to
the consequential service benefits flowing from the order dated
25.06.2024 including continuity of service and benefits
consequential thereto, but is not entitled to claim back
wages/salary for the period during which he did not render
service pursuant to the order of dismissal.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant has,
however, submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge
passed on 25.06.2024 in the aforesaid W.P.No.38110/2016 was
subjected to writ appeal bearing W.A.No.1369/2024. After
finding that neither the order passed by the Disciplinary
- 7 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
Authority nor the Appellate Authority addressed the points
raised by the petitioner-complainant, but they proceeded on
the premise that the petitioner-complainant was also indicted
by the Enquiry Officer, it was observed that obviously the role
of the petitioner-complainant and his job description was not
considered. In that view of the matter, the observations made
by the learned Single Judge, in appreciating the role of the
petitioner-complainant and invoking the ‘Doctrine of
Proportionality’ could not be faulted. The Division Bench
thereafter returned the finding that no infirmity in the order of
the learned Single Judge was found and therefore, the appeal
was dismissed.
11. The submission is that in the order of affirmance by
the Division Bench of this Court, the order of the learned Single
Judge stood merged and thereafter it was only the order of the
Division Bench that stood. Learned Counsel has referred to a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
1
Pradesh v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria with pointed reference
to paragraph No.41 thereof to contend that the order of
affirmance passed by the Division Bench in appeal resulted in
appellate order subsisting and it alone remained operative and
capable of enforcement in the eye of law.
1
(2024) 15 SCC 1
- 8 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
12. It is further stated that the factum of filing the writ
appeal before the Division Bench was concealed by the accused
before the learned Single Judge when the application
I.A.No.1/2026 was moved. It is submitted that because of this
concealment, the learned Single Judge did not notice the order
of the Division Bench in the writ appeal and because of that,
the clarificatory order was passed on 03.09.2026. It is stated
that the material fact regarding filing of the appeal being
concealed by the accused, amounted to fraud played on the
Court. It is also submitted that an application for recall has
been preferred by the petitioner-complainant before the
learned Single Judge for recall of the order dated 03.09.2026.
13. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties
and have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner-complainant.
14. In paragraph No.41 of the judgment in Virendra
Bahadur Katheria , the Supreme Court considered its judgment
by a three Judge Bench in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. v.
2
State of Kerala & Another . Paragraph No.44 of the judgment
in Kunhayammed, summed up the conclusions therein.
2
(2006) 6 SCC 359
- 9 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
Paragraph No.44(i) that has been relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, reads as follows:
“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided
against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any
other authority before superior forum and such superior
forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in
issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum
merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is
the latter which subsists, remains operative and is
capable of enforcement in the eye of the law.”
15. Since it is submitted by learned Counsel for the
complainant that for recall of the order dated 03.09.2026 an
application has been filed before the learned Single Judge, we
would not like to express any opinion on the aspect of merger
or concealment at this stage, since our answer thereto would
have an effect on the outcome of the application for recall
pending before the learned Single Judge.
16. It is open for the complainant to raise such pleas as
may be advised before the learned Single Judge for
consideration of the application for recall. As things stand, the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2026, clarifying
the aspect of back wages/salary for the period during which the
complainant did not render service pursuant to the order of
dismissal, unless that order is demonstrated to have been
varied, this Court cannot but affirm that the compliance of the
- 10 -
CCC No.274 of 2025
order of the writ Court is evinced in the affidavit dated
15.09.2026 filed by accused No.2.
17. The contempt case is therefore consigned. Leaving
it open to the complainant to revive the contempt proceedings,
should any order enure to his benefit in the recall application
filed by him, which is pending before the learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
DR/KSR