Allowed

Shri G.R.Govindaraju v. Bangalore Water Supply

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WA/156/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal quashing a show cause notice issued to a retired Deputy Chief Engineer. The Court held that under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, proceedings cannot be initiated for events occurring more than four years prior to the notice, holding the notice invalid quashing it while setting aside the Single Judge's order.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 07/01/2020 quashed; impugned order of Single Judge dated 10/02/2020 set aside; appeal allowed.

Shri G.R.Govindaraju Vs Bangalore Water Supply — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.156 OF 2020 (S-DE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI G.R.GOVINDARAJU SON OF LATE.G.K.RAMAIAH AGE-63 YEARS RETIRED DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (EE CADRE) NO.64/A-4, PIPE LINE, MANUVANA VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI:GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶13

AND:

¶14

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BWSSB 1^ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI:B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.3221 OF 2020 DATED 10.2.2020, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER.

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The appellant is assailing order dated 10/02/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3221 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the claim for quashing Annexure-G i.e., Article of Charges-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 07/01/2020 issued by the respondent.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

¶23

was working as Deputy Chief Engineer in Executive Engineer cadre and retired from service on 31/07/2017. Certain misconduct on the part of the appellant in procuring the materials during the years 2008-2011 was alleged. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged

¶24

¶25

with the Lokayukta and a retired District Judge is said to have conducted enquiry and found the appellant not guilty. Thereafter, the complaint with Lokayukta came to be closed during the year 2013.

¶26

It is contended by the appellant that even though he retired from service on 31/07/2017, Annexure-G was issued on 07/01/2020 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the enquiry should not be initiated for the so called misconduct pertaining to the years 20082011. It is contended that in view of Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the KCSR” for the sake of brevity), no such departmental enquiry could have been initiated after more than four years. It is stated that the respondentestablishment had adopted KCSR and therefore, it is bound by the above provisions and issuance of Annexure-G is in clear violation of the provisions of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. Therefore, the appellant prayed for quashing of the

¶27

¶28

same in the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, this appeal has been preferred.

¶29

We have heard Sri.K.Govindaraj, learned

¶30

counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that while the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition reserving liberty to the appellant to file his reply to the show cause notice, has not taken into consideration Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal by quashing Annexure-G.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting issuance of Annexure-G contended that the writ petition itself was a pre-mature one as only the show cause notice was issued and the appellant is having opportunity to show cause to the charges leveled against him and therefore, the writ petition came to be rightly rejected.

¶33

¶34

Since no grounds are made out to allow the appeal, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

On perusal of the material on record in light of the rival contentions, there is no doubt with regard to the applicability of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR to the employees of the respondent. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR reads as under:

¶36

“Rule 214(1)(a) – Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence –

¶37

xxx

¶38

proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service.

¶39

¶40

xxx

¶41

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.

¶42

(i) xxx

¶43

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.”

¶44

A plain reading of the Rule makes it clear that

¶45

no disciplinary proceeding shall be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years before. In this regard, we may also place reliance on the decision of this Court in B.V.Savanda Setty Vs State of Mysore [1973 Mysore Law Journal 41 S.N.Item No.87], wherein, it is categorically held that Rule 214 empowers the initiation of proceedings, subject to the conditions enumerated in the proviso to the said Rule. One such condition is that the

¶46

¶47

proceedings shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

¶48

Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in The State of Karnataka Vs Sangappa B.Derad and another [RFA No.200057 of 2016 dated 29.09.2016] , wherein the Bench consisting of B.S.Patil J., and B.V.Nagarathna J., held that, as is clear from Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no judicial proceedings could be instituted in respect of cause of action which arose more than four years before such institution.

¶49

This Court again in The State of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and Others Vs V.H.Agarkhed and another [ILR 2017 KAR 3473] , wherein, the Bench consisting of B.V.Nagarathna J., and B.A.Patil J., placing reliance on the decision of Sangappa B.Derad (supra) , re-iterated the position of law that as per Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, no proceedings could be

¶50

¶51

initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years earlier.

¶52

In the present case, admittedly, Annexure-G is dated 07/01/2020 issued to the appellant herein by the respondent to show cause for the alleged misconduct committed between 2008-2011, while he was working as Technical Assistant in the Central Office. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules relied on by the appellant squarely applies to the facts of the case and it debars initiation of proceedings in respect of any event which took place more than four years before.

¶53

Having regard to the aforesaid judgments and also the discussion made above, we find that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has to be allowed by quashing Annexure-G. Therefore, the Article of Chargescum-Show Cause Notice bearing No.BWSSB/Mu Aa AaKA/C Gu-16/4044/2019-20 dated 07/01/2020 (AnnexureG) is quashed. The impugned order of the learned Single

¶54

¶55

Judge dated 10/02/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3221 of 2020 is set aside.

¶56

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶57

In view of the disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid

¶58

terms, all pending applications stand disposed.

¶59

The parties to bear their respective costs.

¶60