HE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) vs SHILADHAR L NATIKAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT APPEAL NO.100060 OF 2025 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL),
R/BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560009.






2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
(ADMIN AND HUMAN RESOURCE),
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560009.



…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHILADHAR L. NATIKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED ACCOUNTANT,
R/O: C/O: DURGAPPA MALEPPA GADAD,
GADDANKERI CROSS, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587102.



Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
29.11.2024 IN W.P.NO.105511/2024 (S-R) TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF/S DEEMS FIT TO GRANT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT O N THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER/S THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )

The appellant-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited (‘the Corporation’ for short) is before us calling in
question an order of the learned Single Judge in WPNo.105511
of 2024 by which the learned Single Judge allows the petition
and sets-aside an endorsement, which had declined the grant
of terminal benefits on retirement of the respondent/employee.
2. Heard Sri. Anirudh A. Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri. S.B. Malligawad, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The respondent at the relevant point in time was working
as an Accounts Officer. Owing to certain omissions or
commissions, no departmental enquiry is instituted, but a crime
comes to be registered against the respondent and others, in

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

which the police after investigation file a charge sheet and the
matter is pending consideration before the concerned Court in
CC No.151/2012. The criminal case is yet to attain finality. In
the interregnum, on 02.02.2019, it transpires that a
departmental enquiry is initiated against the respondent on the
lis
same set of facts or the fulcrum of the of the criminal
proceedings as afore-narrated. In the departmental enquiry,
the respondent comes to be exonerated, the exoneration of
which has become final. After the exoneration, the respondent
retires on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.05.2024.
The respondent was not paid any terminal benefit, but invoking
the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations,
1996 (‘the Regulations’, for short), the Corporation paid the
provisional pension of 50% and not the Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity and other retirement benefits that an employee would
be entitled to in the event of his/her superannuation. This was
called in question by the respondent in WP No.105511 of 2024.
The learned Single Judge in terms of the order dated
29.11.2024, allowed the petition and directed the payment of
the amount within eight weeks. Against the said order, the
subject appeal is preferred.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.
Anirudh A Kulkarni would submit that the Corporation is
entitled to withhold the terminal benefits, if any judicial
proceeding is pending. The judicial proceeding according to him
is a criminal case that is instituted and was pending as on the
date of his retirement, as the FIR was registered in the year
2010 and the matter is pending in CC No.151/2012. He would
submit that in terms of the Regulations 171 and 172 of the
Regulations, the action is taken and cannot be found fault with.

5.1. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of
the co-ordinate Bench in the case of KARNATAKA
POWERTRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND
1
OTHERS v. MALLIKARJUNSAVANUR , which considers the
purport of the very Regulations and directs payment of all
retirement benefits to the respondent therein. The said
judgment is tossed by the Corporation before the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.4987 of 2025. While keeping the Civil Appeal
pending, the Apex Court directed release of the terminal

1
WA No.100422/2023, decided on 16.11.2023

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

benefits of the respondent therein on the score that the
respondent had been acquitted in the criminal trial. However,
the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench is still yet to be taken to
its logical conclusion by the Apex Court.
5.2. Learned counsel submits that in the light of the
exoneration of the respondent in the departmental inquiry, the
eventuality in the criminal case would be an acquittal as the
charges against the respondent could not be proved on
preponderance of probability and therefore, it cannot be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt. On that score as well, the
respondent would submit that he is entitled to terminal
benefits.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events
and the dates are not in dispute. The issue is, whether the
order of the learned Single Judge was following the judgment of
the co-ordinate Bench in MALLIKARJUN SAVANUR supra . The
co-ordinate Bench in the said judgment holds as follows:

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

“…. …. ….
10. Regulations 171 and 172 framed by the
employer require to be interpreted. Regulations 171
and 172 read as under:
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 pension 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 employment, be deemed 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.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

(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;
(c) in the case of a criminal proceedings, on the
date on which the complaint or report of police
office of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is
made; and
(ii) in the case of a civil proceedings, on the date
of presentation of the plaint in the Court.
Note:- Where a case of loss to the Board arising
from fraud or negligence on the part of a retired
employee while he was in service, comes to the
knowledge of the pension sanctioning authority
before his pension is actually sanctioned by that
authority, and no departmental or judicial
proceedings can be instituted at that stage under
the proviso to this Regulation, although no direct
penal recovery from pension is permissible the
pension sanctioning authority can order a
reduction in the amount of pension under the
provisions of Regulation 218 if the service of the
employee can be held to have been not
thoroughly satisfactory.
172. (1) Where any departmental or judicial
proceedings is instituted under Regulation 171 or
where a departmental proceedings is continued

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

under clause (a) of the provision thereto against
an employee who has retired on attaining the age
of superannuation or otherwise, he shall be paid
the period commencing from the date of his
retirement to the date on which upon conclusion
of such proceedings final orders are passed, a
provisional pension not exceeding the maximum
pension which would have been admissible on the
basis of his qualifying service upto the date of
retirement, or if he was under suspension on the
date of retirement, or if he was under suspension
on the date of retirement upto the date
immediately preceding the date on which he was
under suspension; but no gratuity or death-cum-
retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the
conclusion of such proceedings and the issue of
final order thereon.
Note: In the case of a retired employee entitled
to pension without death-cum-retirement gratuity
under the pension Regulations elected by him,
the provisional pension shall not exceed three-
fourths of the maximum pension admissible to
him.
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under
clause(1) shall be adjusted against the final
retirement benefits sanctioned to such employee
upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings but
no recovery shall be made where the pension
finally sanctioned is less than the provisional
pension, or the pension is reduced or withheld
either permanently or for aspecified period.
Note: The grant of pension under this
Regulations shall not prejudice the operation of
Regulation 218 when final pension is to be
sanctioned upon conclusion of the proceedings.
11. From the narration of the facts and it is not in
dispute that the proceedings under the PC Act are pending
against the petitioner in Special A.C.B. C.C. No.6/2022,
which is yet to be concluded and is pending adjudication
before the learned Sessions Judge. The subject matter of
the proceedings before the Special Court relate to offences
under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC
Act. As on the date of attaining the age of superannuation,
there were no judicial proceedings pending against the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

petitioner, which is also an admitted fact. The question as
to whether after taking of cognizance in the criminal
proceedings, judicial proceedings can be stated to
have commenced in terms of Regulation 172
permitting withholding of pension requires to be
considered.
12. It must be noticed that Regulation 172,
which provides for withholding of pension insofar as
retired employee is concerned, refers to the
proceedings instituted under Regulation 171. A close
reading of Regulation 171 would make it clear that
the proceedings under Regulation 171 relate to
pecuniary loss caused to the Board either in whole or
part. While interpreting Regulation 171, the words
“any pecuniary loss caused to the Board”, are
required to be construed as a condition precedent
even as regards enquiry sought to be initiated after
attaining superannuation in terms of Regulation
172(b). Such interpretation would be necessary
taking note of nature of the pension being a reward
for the past services rendered and if sought to be
withheld, the same must be sanctioned by the
applicable regulation. If right to receive pension is
treated as property in terms of law laid down by
constitution bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC
330] case supra, it is clear that abridging of pension
must be strictly in terms of Regulations.
13. The question in the present case is also as
to whether the judicial proceedings as contemplated
under Regulation 171 have been instituted for
purposes of Regulation 172. The word ‘institute”
would refer to commencement of certain
proceedings. The reference to proceedings instituted
under Regulation 171 would imply that the
proceedings must be instituted by the employer, that
is the only manner of construing the power of
withholding the pension, since the pension is a
service condition between the employer and
employee. If that were to be so, the judicial
proceedings instituted by third party under the PC
Act cannot be considered to be proceedings
instituted under Regulation 171. Proceedings

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

instituted by third party cannot be construed to fall
within the category of judicial proceedings
permitting the employer to withhold the pension of
the employee.
14. In terms of Regulation 172, the reference to
judicial proceedings and its pendency would take us
to the explanation and as regards criminal
proceedings, the same can be deemed to be
instituted, is only on the date when the cognizance is
taken. In the present case, the cognizance was taken
on 6.8.2022 after he had retired from service on
31.05.2022. Though proceedings were instituted
before the ACB even prior to the petitioner having
retired, cognizance was taken subsequently.
It is relevant to note that the endorsement
withholding the pension came to be passed on 28.6.2022.
As cognizance was taken only on 6.8.2022 in terms of the
explanation to Regulation 172, as on the date of
endorsement, there was no judicial proceeding that was
pending.
15.It must be noticed that the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Boregowda’s case supra was
dealing with the departmental enquiry and not
judicial proceedings. Further in Boregowda'’s case,
judicial proceedings were pending as on the date of
retirement and accordingly, the said authority relied
upon would be of no support to the learned counsel
for the appellants.
16. However, we clarify that the present case
relates to withholding of pension in terms of
Regulation 172 and leave open all rights of the
employer under the Regulations as are available
upon conclusion of the judicial proceedings.
Accordingly, we find that the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge does not call for interference
and accordingly, Writ Appeal stands rejected . ”
(Emphasis supplied)

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

The co-ordinate Bench, by a detailed reasoning, affirmed the
findings of the learned Single Judge and directed that the
terminal benefits of the respondent therein must be paid.
8. In the case at hand, what is required to be noticed
is that the criminal case against the respondent is pending for
the last 16 years. The crime is registered in the year 2010, the
charge sheet is filed in the year 2012 and the criminal trial is
yet to get concluded. The respondent has retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation. The Regulations that
permit the Corporation to withhold the terminal benefits is
interpreted by the co-ordinate Bench, as quoted hereinabove.
9. On the conspectus of all these factors, in our
considered view, the respondent would become entitled to the
release of terminal benefits that has got accrued in his favour
pursuant to his retirement. The reason is that on the same set
of facts, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the
respondent. After a full-blown proceeding, the Enquiry Officer
in the departmental enquiry holds that the charges against the
respondent are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepts

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

the findings of the Enquiry Officer and closes the disciplinary
proceeding against the respondent by the following order:
“
²æÃ.J¸ï.J¯ï.£ÁnÃPÁgÀ, ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁj, PÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á «¨sÁUÀ, ºÉ¸ÁÌA, EAr (ºÁ® ¸ÀzÀj
ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è n. J¯ï. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¸ï. J¸ï. «¨sÁUÀ, PÀ«¥À椤, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÅgÀ E°è
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ)

²æà J¸ï. J¯ï. £ÁnÃPÀgÀ, ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁj(DA. ¥À) gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E°è ®¨sÀåªÁV¯Áè, ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÁ¥À¸À
§AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄAqÀ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉý ºÁdgÀ
¥Àr¹zÀAvÀºÀ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ©®Äè, CAzÁdÄ ¥ÀvÀæ EªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀiÁV
¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä CºÀðªÁV¯Áè. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÁdgÀ ¥Àr¸À¯ÁzÀ ©®ÄèUÀ¼À°è
EªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ ©®ÄèUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀªÀÅ C£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦.
qÀ§Æèå - 1 jAzÀ ¦.qÀ§Æèå - 21 EªÀgÀÄ J°èAiÀÄÆ ¤Ãr¯Áè. CzÀÆ C®èzÉ PÉêÀ®
©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr¯Áè CAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæPÉÌ CzÀÄ CªÀgÀ
PÀvÀðªÀåZÀÄåwAiÀiÁUÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ KPÉAzÀgÉ, D ©®ÄèUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÀÄåvï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁVzÁÝgÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ F D¥Á¢vÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ C¯Áè. PÁgÀt EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀAvÀºÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ¼À C¨sÁªÀ«zÉ CAvÁ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃw
ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ªÉÄÃ¯É FUÁUÀ¯Éà ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV EªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÉ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ F D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄÆ PÀÆqÁ E°è gÀÄdĪÁvÁV¯Áè CAvÁ ºÉüÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”
It is not only the exoneration of the respondent, but
exoneration of all those persons against whom the charge sheet
had been filed. It is an admitted fact that the criminal case
rests upon the same fulcrum that is projected in the
departmental inquiry. Therefore, in a case where probabilities
are preponderant, the respondent has not been able to prove
the guilt. Therefore, it is only an eventuality that the
prosecution would prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt
in a criminal trial on the same set of facts. Pendency of a
criminal trial for over 16 years would not mean that the

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15844-DB
WA No. 100060 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020020892025

respondent would not become entitled to all benefits as the co-
ordinate Bench has interpreted these very Regulations and had
directed the payment of terminal benefits.
10. In that light, finding no merit in the challenge to the
order of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal stands
disposed .
As a consequence, all pending IAs are also disposed.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9