State challenged a Tribunal order setting aside entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta against a retired officer. Holding that allegations related to 2011-12, beyond four years before institution after his 2013 retirement, barred under Rule 214(2)(b) KCSR, the Court rejected the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:174-DB WP No. 107194 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 107194 OF 2023 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALORE-560001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2024.01.10 15:30:12 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION, NO. 5238/2017 BY ORDER DATED 12.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/State is before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 12.09.2019 in Application No.5238/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) setting aside order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A5) entrusting enquiry against respondent No.1 to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule-14A of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1957.
2. Heard learned Government Advocate
Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for petitioner/State and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2013 as District Watershed Development Officer was before Tribunal challenging impugned order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A5) whereby enquiry against him was entrusted to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the CCA Rules. It is
submitted that the Tribunal on consideration of the contentions raised by both the petitioner/Government as well as respondent No.1/applicant, under order dated 12.09.2019 set aside the order dated 19.06.2017, against which, the petitioner/State is before this Court.
4. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate would contend that the enquiry against respondent No.1 was initiated or contemplated while he was in service. It is submitted that the complaint against respondent No.1 was received on 17.07.2013 prior to his retirement and action was initiated immediately.
5. It is further submitted that on investigation, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted its report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act on 28.12.2016 and on the said report, the Government examined the same under Section 12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act and entrusted enquiry to the Lokayukta under impugned order dated 19.06.2017. Further learned Government Advocate would submit that no application would be maintainable
against entrustment order, since it is premature and respondent No.1-applicant before the Tribunal cannot be an aggrieved person to challenge the entrustment order. Further, learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no delay in initiating the enquiry, since the complaint received against respondent No.1 was on 17.07.2013 and immediately thereafter action is initiated for investigation and further action. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
6. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the entrustment order or initiation of proceedings against respondent No.1 is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules,1957.
7. Having heard the learned Government advocate and on perusal of writ petition papers, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
8. Admittedly, respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.07.2013 on attaining the age of
superannuation. The complaint against respondent No.1 was received on 17.07.2013 and after investigation, Lokayuktha submitted report under Section 12(3) of Lokayuktha Act on 28.12.2016. On consideration of 12(3) report, the Government under impugned order dated 19.06.2017 entrusted the enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta under impugned order dated 19.06.2017.
9. Rule 214 (2)(b) of KCSR reads as follows:
“The departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment.
- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:174-DB WP No. 107194 of 2023
applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be the made in relation to the Government servant during his service.”
10. In terms of the above Rule, no departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
11. Further Rule 214(6)(a) makes it abundantly clear that Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others V/s Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 has made it clear that Departmental proceedings are commenced only when charge sheet is issued to the delinquent employee.
12. In the instant case, the allegation against respondent No.1 relates to the period during 2011-12. The respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.07.2013. In terms of Rule 214 of KCSR, no enquiry against respondent No.1 could be initiated in respect of any event which took place during 2011-12 since it would be more than 4 years before such institution. In view of this finding no other ground remain for consideration. Thus, we do not find any
error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RKM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental enquiry could be initiated against a retired officer for events of 2011-12 under Rule 214(2)(b) KCSR given the four-year bar.
Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the entrustment of enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and others V/s Anil Kumar SarkarRelied on¶11
(2013) 4 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture
Sri. S. B. Biradar
The Karnataka Lokayukta
S G Pandit
K V Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
