Sri. B. Shivaramanna vs The State of Karnataka and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by the State Government employee who while serving as an ''Assistant'' in the Karnataka Government Secretariat was subjected to certain disciplinary enquiry on the ground of misconduct etc., the disciplinary authority proceedings having been initiated against him which ultimately resulted in the disciplinary authority passing an order of compulsory retirement on 7.2.2003 and the appellate authority having found no occasion to vary the same and having dismissed the appeal confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Questioning the legality of this order, petitioner filed Application No. 4071/2003 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal after discussing the merits of the matter in its opinion thought it proper to dispose of the application in the following terms:

(i) The application is disposed of.

(ii) We hereby quash the order bearing No.Si.Aa.Su.E. 138 Aa.Sa.Se. 97 dated 7.2.2003 vide Annexure-A11 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the order bearing No. Si.Aa.Su.E. 05 AaKoE 2003 dated 4.4.2003 vide Annexure-A13 modifying the said order of punishment of compulsory retirement and substitute the same as to the "reduction of pay scale of the applicant to the minimum of the pay scale and the applicant shall not get his annual increments for a period of five years and the increments shall operate only after five years from the date of receipt of this order.

(iii) We hereby direct the Respondents to reinstate the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

(iv) We direct the applicant to give a representation to the authorities concerned for his reinstatement along with the certified copy of this order.

(v) We make it clear that the applicant is not entitled to any monetary benefits like salary, etc. during the interregnum period of the order of compulsory retirement i.e., 07.02.2003, till the date of reinstatement. He is entitled for other service-benefits like seniority etc.

Writ petitioner though got substantial relief before the Tribunal in the above matter, is nevertheless, aggrieved that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has made it clear that the writ petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits like salary etc., during the interregnum period of the order of compulsory retirement and date of reinstatement, but he is entitled only for other service benefits like seniority etc.

Questioning this part of the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri. S.G. Pandit, learned counsel is that the Tribunal is not justified in imposing unwarranted and unnecessary conditions to deny the wages to the writ petitioner even after it had come to the conclusion that the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service was not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

It is submitted that the Tribunal having quashed the order of compulsory retirement should not have further imposed any conditions or diluted the relief in the manner of which it has passed the order; that at any rate, it is submitted that when once there is an order of reinstatement, the person becomes eligible for the pay for the period during which he is kept away from work and service.

We notice from the order of the Tribunal that it is not as though the Tribunal took the view that the writ petitioner was a person who merited no punishment at all and in fact observed that he cannot be allowed to go scot free from any punishment in view of his conduct, the Tribunal took note of the developments, conduct of the writ petitioner and thought in the circumstances, while the order of compulsory retirement may not be justified, but nevertheless, thought imposition of lesser punishment like reduction of pay scale of the applicant to the minimum of pay scale and for about five years and also denial of wages for the period of the order questioned in the application and the date of reinstatement was justified or required in the circumstances and the Tribunal was quite emphatic about it.

On consideration of the submissions made and on looking into the order, we find that the Tribunal had considered all aspects while reducing the punishment and subject to the conditions and observations made therein. The order of the Tribunal has come as a package and the petitioner cannot take advantage of one part and seek to get over the other part. The petitioner having got substantial relief before the Tribunal and the Tribunal being of the view that lesser punishment will be in a particular manner as indicated in the order, we do not think we should interfere in a matter of this nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.