Pension withholding was upheld where the employee’s inconsistent evidence supported the disciplinary finding of misconduct.

A complaint alleged that Panchayat records for a property registered in Gangappa’s name were changed to Mahalingappa’s name without Gangappa’s knowledge or consent.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Lokayukta initially recommended withholding two increments, but, after being informed that Kumaraswamy had retired, modified its recommendation to withholding 10% of his pension for three years.

The State imposed that penalty after issuing a further show-cause notice.

Kumaraswamy’s challenge to the penalty was dismissed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 165/2024.

He then filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the Tribunal’s order and the penalty.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of Kumaraswamy’s challenge to the pension penalty warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the disciplinary authority’s penalty was sustainable in light of the evidence concerning Kumaraswamy’s role in changing the katha records and the grounds raised against the inquiry.

The Government imposed the penalty of withholding 10% of Kumaraswamy’s pension for three years under Rule 214(1)(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the Tribunal’s order.

The judgment cited no precedents and did not set out a separate legal test governing review of the disciplinary findings.

The Court considered Kumaraswamy’s contention that the inquiry was improper and that he had not tampered with or changed the records.

It found that his evidence was inconsistent: although he denied transferring the katha in his chief-examination, he admitted in cross-examination that his written objection stated he had effected the change after Gangappa orally approached him.

The Court also noted his admission that the family arrangement on which he relied was made after the complaint was filed.

In view of these inconsistencies, the Court declined to accept his defence and held that the disciplinary authority had imposed an appropriate penalty; it found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

It dismissed the writ petition.