Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs N. Munivenkatappa

Manjunath, J.—Appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed on 12.1.2007 in WP No. 10847/2005. Heard the counsel for the appellants, counsel for R-1 and the Govt. Advocate for R-2.

The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: R-1 was the writ petitioner. He was working as an Executive Engineer in the appellant-corporation. He retired from the service after attaining the age of super-annuation on 30.6.2011. While he was in service, on the allegation that while executing repairs certain funds were mis-used by him along with other employees of the appellant. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against R-1 and 5 others. Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against R-1 were proved. The Commissioner after hearing R-1 held that a sum of Rs. 1 lac to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. Since by then he had retired from the service. Challenging the order of the Commissioner. R-1 filed the writ petition. Learned single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Corporation has no power to recover the amount from the pension payable to the respondent and as per KCS Rules it is only the Government which has got powers to do it, dismissed the petition. However liberty was granted to recover it by filing a civil suit. This order is called in question in this appeal.

The main contention of the appellant before us is that in view of Annexure-A to the writ petition that Corporation of City of Bangalore has adopted KCS Rules, while doing so, as per proviso to Rule-2 of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991 Commissioner has got power to recover the amount. Rule-2(2) of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991 reads as hereunder:

(2) All words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, as amended from time to time.

Provided that the expressions ''Government Servant(s)'', ''Head of the Department(s)'' ''The Government'' or/and ''The Governor'' shall respectively mean ''Employee'' ''Commissioner or any of his Nominee'' and ''Government in Housing and Urban Development Department''.

On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear to us in place of ''Government Servant'' same shall be read as ''Employee of the Corporation'', in place of. ''Head of the Department'' ''Commissioner'' or any of his Nominee'' has to be read, in place of ''Government, ''Housing and Urban Development Department'' alone has to be considered. Therefore, it is clear that if KCSRs provides for the Head of the Department to recover the penalty from out of the salary of the Government Servant, then it goes without saying that the powers exercised by the Commissioner has to be accepted and appeal has to be allowed. But in this case, by the time the order is passed by the disciplinary authority, R-1 had attained the age of super-annuation, therefore what was payable to him is only a pension. As per Rule 214(1) (A) of KCSRs only Government can order for recovery from out of the pension payable to a retired employee. Since the word ''Governments'' is substituted by the word ''Housing and Urban Development Department'', only that department is competent to recover the amount from the pension. Therefore, we do not see any merits in this appeal. According to us, learned single Judge has not committed any error. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.