Retired Panchayat Secretary’s 50% Pension Restored After Karnataka HC Rejects Lokayukta Challenge Over Tribunal’s Finding of No Bribe Demand

Following a complaint, the Upa-Lokayukta investigated allegations against respondent No. 1, a retired Gram Panchayat Secretary, and reported the charges as proved.

The competent authority thereafter ordered permanent withholding of 50% of his pensionary benefits.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal set aside the punishment and directed release of the withheld benefits, relying on evidence that the complainant had a history of making complaints against officials and on defence witnesses’ testimony denying bribery or payment to respondent No. 1.

The Upa-Lokayukta challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the Tribunal had impermissibly reappreciated the enquiry evidence.

Article 227 confers supervisory power on the High Court, to be exercised sparingly to keep courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority; it is not a mechanism for correcting ordinary errors of fact or law.

Interference is warranted only in exceptional cases, including where a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred.

The Court applied the principle stated in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, para. 31.

The Upa-Lokayukta also relied on Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhary v. Life Insurance Corporation, (2017) 9 SCC 404, in support of its challenge to the Tribunal’s treatment of the evidence.

The Tribunal had considered the complainant’s admission concerning his practice of filing complaints against officials, the testimony of three beneficiaries denying that respondent No. 1 demanded or received a bribe, and evidence concerning the payment of property tax.

It found no sufficient basis to sustain the charge of grave misconduct and concluded that the permanent withholding of 50% of pension was unsustainable.

Applying the limited supervisory standard under Article 227, the High Court found no error warranting intervention in the Tribunal’s assessment or any basis to displace its findings.

The Tribunal’s order quashing the penalty and directing release of the withheld pensionary benefits therefore remained undisturbed; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.