DATTATREYA NARAYANARAO TELGAR vs THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ATS)

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO.108140 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

DATTATREYA NARAYANARAO TELGAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NOW RETIRED
R/O: 40, ASHOK NAGAR, CHINCHUR MILL ROAD,
MADIHAAL, DHARWAD – 580 006.




…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ATS),
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT WOMEN POLYTECHNIC,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 021,
DIST: DHARWAD.







Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN
TH
APPLICATION NO.10253 OF 2020 DATED 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023


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

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an
order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi
‘the Tribunal’
(hereinafter referred to as for short) in
Application No.10253 of 2020, whereby the petitioner had
sought the following prayer:
“The application is filed with a prayer to quash the
impugned order being No.SamaPaaHu:EST:2019-20
nd
dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure – 7), passed by the 2
nd
respondent and further to direct the 2 respondent to
refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant.”


2. The prayer was for a refund of ₹1,50,000/- to the
petitioner. The petition comes to be rejected.


3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Anant P. Savadi
appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. Girija
S. Hiremath appearing for the respondents.


4. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

4.1. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was
working as a First Division Assistant and on the retirement of
the Principal, the respondent No.2 moves the papers with the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023

Accountant General for release of his terminal benefits. The
respondent No.2 is said to have informed the Accountant
General that the petitioner has not handed over full charge and
‘no due certificate’
a was refused to be issued for release of the
retirement benefits of the petitioner on the allegation that the
petitioner has not handed over 605 books, 2 laptops to the
institution and the respondent No.2 directs the Accountant
General to withhold ₹1,50,000/- from the Death Cum
Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the petitioner and after
withholding the said money, directed the release of the pension
to the petitioner. The petitioner was said to retire on
31.12.2018.


4.2. The terminal benefits of the petitioner was not
settled on the score that the petitioner has not paid the amount
of ₹1,50,000/- that was determined as alleged loss of 605
books and 2 laptops. Though the petitioner retired on
31.12.2018, for about 8 months no pension or terminal benefits
was paid. On 24.07.2019 a notice is issued which reads as
follows, which is communicated to the petitioner as well.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023

“:eÁÕ¥À£À:

«µÀAiÀÄ:- UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ PÀrªÉÄ
EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR:- 1) F PÀbÉÃj eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå:
¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÁºÀÄ/EJ¸ïn/2018-19,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 08/12/2019.
2) ¹Ûæà ¥Àæ«Ãt UÉÆüÉ, ¥Àæ. zÀ. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/07/2019.
*
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ PÀbÉÃj
eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æà r.J£ï.PÉ®UÁgÀ, ¤ªÀÈvÀ ¥Àæ.zÀ. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
ªÀ±ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ GUÁæt «¨sÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æÃ
¥Àæ«Ãt UÉÆüÉ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

CzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÉüÉ
(Accession Register)
zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ (2)gÀ ²æà ¥Àæ«Ãt UÉÆüÉ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ
vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ²æà ¥Àæ«Ãt UÉÆüÉ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
605 ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. C®èzÉà PÀrªÉÄ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀÛ
MlÄÖ 62,813.87/- EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ ¢éUÀÄt ªÉÆvÀÛ MlÄÖ 1,25,628/-
gÀÆUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt PÀrªÉÄ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀPÀët ¥ÀÇgÉʸÀĪÀAvÉ
CxÀªÁ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À ¢éUÀÄt ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31/07/2019
gÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀAvÉ F eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.
¸À»/-
¥ÁæZÁAiÀÄðgÀÄ
¸ÀgÀPÁj ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Á°mÉQßPï
–
ºÀħâ½î 580 021”


4.3. The notice is taken forward and a communication
springs on 01.08.2019, directing the terminal benefits of the
petitioner not to be released till Rs.1,50,000/- is either paid by
the petitioner or it is withheld from out of the terminal benefits.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023

The petitioner who had already retired and was driven to
impecuniosity, was in dire need of money, therefore, gave cash
of ₹1,50,000/- and it is only then the terminal benefits of the
petitioner was released. After receipt of the terminal benefits,
the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent in
coercing the petitioner for payment of an amount of
₹1,50,000/- approaches the Tribunal seeking its refund. The
Tribunal by the following order dismisses the petition:

“6. The undisputed fact of the case is that the
applicant while working as First Division Assistant in the
office the 2nd respondent department at Government
Women Polytechnic, Vidyanagar, Hubballi, retired from
services on 31.12.2018. It is also a fact that there was
shortage of books in the library for which the applicant
was asked to make up the difference. As regards the
shortage of books, the assessment though has varied
from time to time, it is seen from the records that the
final payment of Rs.89,474/- has been made by the
applicant on 28.01.2020, which is evident from the
record at Annexure-R2. It is pertinent to note that the
applicant has not produced any record to show that he
has paid the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 2nd
respondent or the same has been deducted from his
pensionary benefits. Therefore, no firm conclusion can
be derived by this Tribunal in this regard. As regards the
stand of the applicant that the principles of natural
justice has not been followed in the instant case, it is
seen that it is the applicant, who has willingly and
voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.89,474/- for which proper
receipt has been issued by the respondent authorities. If
at all the applicant had any objection to this notice, he
should have raised this issue before the concerned
authority or he should have refused to make payment.
Instead, the applicant has decided to pay the amount
voluntarily. Moreover, the applicant before depositing

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023

the amount has not protested the demand, therefore,
no right has accrued to challenge the recovery. All these
goes to prove that there is no merit in the contention of
the applicant and therefore, we do not consider it fit, to
interfere in the matter.

8. In the result, we proceed to pass the
following:

O R D E R

The application is hereby dismissed.”



5. A perusal at the order of the Tribunal would clearly
indicate that it is not only perverse but contrary to law. If the
petitioner was to be held accountable for alleged loss of 605
books and two laptops, the accountability could not have been
fixed without at the outset holding a departmental enquiry. Let
alone a departmental enquiry in the case at hand, not even a
show cause notice is issued to the petitioner as to why the said
amount of ₹1,50,000/- should not be deducted for the alleged
loss of 605 books and two laptops. Therefore, the recovery of
the amount of ₹1,50,000/- or the coercion meted upon the
petitioner for repayment of ₹1,50,000/- cannot but be said to
be contrary to law. The State cannot deal with a retired
employee at the time of retirement by threatening him that

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023

terminal benefits would not be released if ₹1,50,000/- is not
repaid. The action by the State is sans countenance.


6. In that light the petition deserves to succeed. The
order of the Tribunal is thus to be obliterated.


7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:
ORDER


(i) The writ petition is allowed.


(ii) The impugned order passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application
No.10253 of 2020 dated 16.09.2022 stands set
aside.


(iii) In the light of the admitted fact of the receipt
of the amount of Rs.89,474/-, the institution or
the State shall pay within eight weeks refund
the amount.


(iv) The amount that is taken from the hands of
the petitioner without even issuance of a notice
shall be forthwith shall within a period of with
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order be refunded to the petitioner
along with interest at 6% per annum within 8
weeks from today.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17907-DB
WP No. 108140 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020132902023



(v) In the event the amount is not refunded within
8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order, the amount shall be refunded with
interest at 10% per annum from the date it
was taken from the hands of the petitioner till
the date it reaches the doors of the petitioner.



Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE






RSH & VNP / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3