THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR vs. SRI ANNAPPA S JAMADAR AND ANR

Case Type: N/A

Date of Judgment: 15-04-2026

Preview image for THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR vs. SRI ANNAPPA S JAMADAR AND ANR

Full Judgment Text


- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO.201871 OF 2021 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
IN KARNATAKA (PENSION)
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)

AND:

1. SRI. ANNAPPA S. JAMADAR
S/O SAYABANNA JAMADAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
R/O: NO.140, NGO COLONY,
BEHIND GULBARGA UNIVERSITY,
KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI-585106.

2. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GHATE KONDIBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)









Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/03/2020 IN APPLICATION
NO.3106/2019 AS AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT KALABURAGI AND
ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The State is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:-
“To issue a writ of certiorari any other writ or direction to
quash the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 in Application
No.3106/2019 as at Annexure-A passed by the Hon’ble
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, at Kalaburagi.”

2. Respondent No.1 having been imposed with a
penalty of withholding pensionary benefits to the
extent of 50% had challenged the same before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short
‘KSAT’) in Application No.3106/2019. In the KSAT by
its order dated 05.03.2020 allowed the application on
two grounds.

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR



3. Firstly, that there is no compliance with Rule 214(1)
(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short
‘KCS Rules’), for the reason that the disciplinary
authority in its order dated 15.02.2019 had not
adverted to or found respondent No.1 guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service.

4. Secondly, that the second show cause notice had not
been issued before imposing the penalty.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that
the charge against the respondent No.1 being one of
corruption, that by itself is a grave misconduct and
there is no particular finding required to be given by
the disciplinary authority as regards grave
misconduct and matters relating to corruption.
Secondly, insofar as a second show cause notice is
concerned, the same is remediable, if the matter is
remanded to the disciplinary authority, a second
show cause notice would be issued.

6. The aspect of considering the second submission
would only arise if the first submission where to be
accepted.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR



7. Rule 214(1)(a) of the KCS Rules reads as under :-
“ 214 (1) (a) Withholding or withdrawing
pension for misconduct or negligence. - The
Government reserve to themselves the right of
either withholding or withdrawing a pension or
part thereof, either permanently or for a
specified period, if in any departmental or
judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during
the period of his service including the service
under a foreign employer and the service
rendered upon re-employment after
retirement.”

8. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that
withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof,
either permanently or for a specified period, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, can only be
made if the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during his service. It is
therefore, required that there is an order which is
passed appreciating this aspect and the disciplinary
authority comes to a categorical conclusion that
there is a grave misconduct or negligence during the
period of service. Though, corruption is a
misconduct, it was for the disciplinary authority to
arrive at a categorical conclusion that it is a grave
misconduct or negligence which requires an
application of mind by the disciplinary authority,
giving raise to such a finding.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR



9. In the present case, admittedly there is no such
finding by the disciplinary authority as regards grave
misconduct or negligence, except to come to a
finding that there is misconduct by the delinquent
employee. There is a difference between grave
misconduct and misconduct perse. More particularly
when it relates to withholding or withdrawing a
pension after the employee who has superannuated.

10. It is for that reason there is specific provision made
in the KCS Rules in terms of Rule 214 (1) (a)
requiring that before such withholding or withdrawing
of pension is made, there is finding arrived at that
the employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence. The Disciplinary Authority, being well
versed in these matters, being aware of the
requirements of Rule 214 (1) (a) has chosen not to
come to a conclusion that the employee is guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence, which would only
mean that insofar as that provision is concerned, the
finding is in favour of the employee.

11. Such being the case, without such a conclusion or a
finding being arrived at by the disciplinary authority,
the question of withholding or withdrawing a pension
would not arise, which is what has been rightly
appreciated by the KSAT. We do not find any infinity
in the said matter.

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3256-DB
WP No. 201871 of 2021

HC-KAR



12. The petition stands dismissed .

Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE

KJJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
CT:SI