Allowed

Mr N R Shivashankar v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/1436/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filing to set aside a show cause notice. The court held that since the alleged misconduct occurred beyond the four-year limitation period specified in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules for post-retirement proceedings, the charge sheet was quashed and the petitioner was directed to receive terminal benefits. Nullify act.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet is quashed. Terminal benefits, if withheld, shall be paid within two months.

Mr N R Shivashankar Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46162 WP No. 1436 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1436 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR N R SHIVASHANKAR

¶8

S/O LATE NAMADEVA AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.306, AMRUTHA LAKE WOODS APARTMENT, ROYAL ENCLAVE, JAKKUR, SRIRAMPURA BENGALURU-560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.V. NISHANTH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 029.

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:46162 WP No. 1436 of 2022

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, MANIYAR TALEEM FORT ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. Z.N.HANSI., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 DATED 14.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.KAJAMA/HRD-6:E.V/932/2020-21, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The following facts are not in dispute –

¶25

That on 30.09.2017, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, was permitted to retire.

¶26

That on 02.02.2018, the petitioner was also sanctioned provisional pension.

¶27

That on 14.09.2020, a charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner, in which it is stated that the petitioner had failed to take action in respect of theft of certain articles during the period 21.10.2013 to

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46162 WP No. 1436 of 2022

¶29

29.10.2013 and since the same amounted to dereliction of

¶30

duty, he was being charged with misconduct.

¶31

Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services

¶32

Rules (for brevity, referred to as “ the Rules ”) reads as follows:

¶33

“214(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.-

¶34

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

¶35

As could be seen from the above, the departmental proceedings, if sought to be instituted after the retirement of a person, is permissible only in respect of an event, which had taken place four years prior to the institution. In other words, in this case, the petitioner could have been proceeded with departmental proceedings, if the event had occurred four years prior to 14.09.2020. Admittedly, according to the charge sheet, the event, on the basis of

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46162 WP No. 1436 of 2022

¶37

which proceedings had been initiated, relates to the period between 21.10.2013 and 29.10.2013 and thus, it is clear that the event is beyond the period of four years as provided under Rules 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. It is, therefore, clear that there is a statutory bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

¶38

However, learned counsel for the respondent - Board sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.5153/2021 to contend that every delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings would not ipso facto lead to an enquiry being vitiated.

¶39

In the case before the Apex Court, the Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules was not involved and the Apex Court has also not rendered the judgment in the context of the similar rule.

¶40

Since, in the instant case, there is a statutory bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as the alleged event took place beyond four years prior to

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:46162 WP No. 1436 of 2022

¶43

the institution, it is obvious that the said decision of the Apex Court would have no application. Consequently, the impugned charge sheet is quashed.

¶44

The benefits, that the petitioner is entitled to including any terminal benefits, if withheld and not paid so far, the same shall be made over to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PKS

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Mr N R Shivashankar v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr N R Shivashankar v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K Shobha W/O Late D Krishnappa Vs the Commissioner

Dr Manjunath B D Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gangadharapap B O Vs Karnataka Sanskrit University

Sri. Suresh S Hampannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashok Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghavendra Vs the Managing Director