Lokayukta challenged a Tribunal order quashing a disciplinary charge memo against a retired Additional Superintendent of Police for an alleged 2010 bribe incident. The Court held the charge memo issued in 2015 was time-barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSR and 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:34107-DB WP No. 18899 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18899 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-II, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, BANALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.32, JEETURI PLOT, APPORVA NAGAR, 'D' BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, GOKUL ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR CROSS, HUBLI-580 030 …RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO. 7744/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND AWARD THE COSTS OF THIS W.P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner-Additional Registrar Enquiries-II Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.09.2017 in Application No.7744/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'),
whereby the application of respondent No.3 herein challenging Article of Charges is allowed.
Police retired from service on attaining superannuation on 28.02.2013. On an incident which alleged to have taken place on 12.04.2010 i.e., demanding and accepting illegal gratification, a departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo dated 24.06.2015. Respondent No.3 challenged the said Article of Charge dated 24.06.2015 before the Tribunal on the ground that charge memo dated 24.06.2015 is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCSR'). The Tribunal allowed the application and
quashed the Article of Charge holding that initiation of enquiry and issuance of charge memo is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. Questioning the same, the Additional Registrar Enquiries of Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition.
would support the order passed by the Tribunal and
further, submits that charge memo dated 24.06.2015 is for an incident which had taken place on 12.04.2010 and the same is barred by limitation as prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
There is no dispute with regard to the retirement of respondent No.3 on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013. On the allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification on 12.04.2010, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against respondent No.3 by issuing charge memo dated 24.06.2015. Against a retired Government Servant, no enquiry could be initiated for an
incident prior to four years from the date of initiation in
terms of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. In the instant case, the incident had taken place on 12.04.2010, petitioner retired on 28.02.2013 and charge memo was issued on 24.06.2015, which was clearly barred by time i.e., charge memo is issued more than four years from the date of incident. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
NR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge memo issued more than four years after the incident, against a retired government servant, was barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the Article of Charge?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Additional Registrar Enquiries-II, Karnataka Lokayukta
The State of Karnataka
The Director General & Inspector General of Police
Sri M M Agadi
S.G. Pandit
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
