LI Network
Published on: November 27, 2023 at 22:40 IST
The Karnataka High Court clarified that proceedings initiated by third parties under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against a government employee do not constitute judicial proceedings. The court held that this distinction prevents the employer from withholding the pension of a retired employee.
The ruling came as a response to an appeal by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), challenging a single bench’s order favoring a retired KPTCL employee seeking the release of his retirement benefits.
Justices S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A Patil, forming a division bench, emphasized the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in such cases.
The bench stated, “The judicial proceedings instituted by third parties under the PC Act cannot be considered to be proceedings instituted under Regulation 171. Proceedings instituted by third parties cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee.”
The petitioner, who retired in May 2022, faced an FIR registration in April 2018, based on a complaint from a third-party complainant.
The employer suspended the petitioner, but he was later reinstated. After reaching superannuation, the petitioner sought his pension, but the employer, citing ongoing judicial proceedings, sanctioned only 50% of the pension.
The single judge found no pecuniary loss caused by the petitioner and ordered the full pension payment.
The corporation contested the single judge’s finding, arguing against the need to establish pecuniary loss for withholding pension under Regulation 172 of the PC Act. The petitioner asserted that the right to receive a pension should be restricted only as sanctioned by the regulation, referring to past services rendered.
The bench clarified that Regulation 172 refers to proceedings instituted under Regulation 171, which involves pecuniary loss to the employer.
It affirmed the single judge’s finding that the petitioner did not cause pecuniary loss, emphasizing that interpreting Regulation 171 requires considering it as a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Regulation 172.
The court rejected the appeal, stating that it dealt only with withholding pension under Regulation 172. It affirmed the rights of the employer under the regulations, emphasizing that they remain available upon the conclusion of ongoing proceedings. The Writ Appeal was consequently rejected.
Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Other And Mallikarjun Savanur
