Allowed

Sri S M Ramakrishna v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/7214/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a retired Chief Engineer seeking to quash an article of charges dated 2020 for incidents occurring between 2014 and 2017. The Court held that initiating proceedings after the incident surpassed the four-year limit mandated for retired employees.

What did the court decide?

The impugned article of charges cum show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 was quashed.

Sri S M Ramakrishna Vs Bangalore Water… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9951 WP No. 7214 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.7214 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S.M.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O S MALLEGOWDA, AGE 64 YEARS, RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, R/O NO.536, 16TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE Digitally signed BOARD, by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 009. KARNATAKA

¶12

REP BY ITS THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:9951 WP No. 7214 of 2021

¶16

ARTICLE OF CHARGES CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN DATED 18.12.2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner, who is retired employee of the respondent, has assailed the article of charges cum show cause notice dated 18.12.2020, issued by the respondent as per Annexure-E.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶21

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The controversy in the captioned petition

¶23

revolves around a narrow compass. This Court is called upon to examine as to whether the article of charges could have been issued to the petitioner in respect of the alleged

¶24

incident dated 29.03.2014 to 31.07.2017. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, KCSR Rules) reads as under:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:9951 WP No. 7214 of 2021

¶27

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

¶28

Having examined the averments made in the captioned petition and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017, the impugned article of charges dated 18.12.2020 is not sustainable in the light of the above said rules culled out supra. Rule 214 of the KCSR Rules clearly contemplates that departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee in respect of any event

¶29

which took place more than four years before such incident. The impugned article of charges is clearly hit by the above said rules.

¶30

Primarily, the delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings undermines the petitioner's ability to accurately recollect events and mount a robust defense. This temporal gap significantly diminishes the reliability of memory and the availability of contemporaneous evidence,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9951 WP No. 7214 of 2021

¶33

thereby impeding the petitioner's capacity to present a comprehensive defense. Furthermore, the passage of time may lead to the loss or degradation of crucial evidence and the unavailability of witnesses, severely compromising the petitioner's ability to contest the allegations effectively. Moreover, the substantial delay in initiating disciplinary action engenders the perception of unfairness and arbitrariness in the adjudicative process. The extended lapse of time since the purported transgression may render disciplinary action disproportionate or unjust. The petitioner possesses a legitimate expectation for timely resolution of any disciplinary matters, in adherence to principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. The belated commencement of proceedings not only erodes the petitioner's confidence in the fairness of the process but also contravenes the fundamental tenets of due process and equity. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9951 WP No. 7214 of 2021

¶35

I have also given my anxious consideration to

¶36

the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in similar

¶37

cases. Referring to the findings recorded by the Division Bench in identical cases, this Court is of the view that the impugned article of charges is liable to be quashed.

¶38

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶39

proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

ii. The impugned article of charges cum show

¶43

cause notice as per Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

HDK

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri S M Ramakrishna v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S M Ramakrishna v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage 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

M L Pradyumna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Suresh S/O Khulu Bingekar Vs the District Sessions Judge

Dr H C Devarajegowda Vs the University of Mysore

Sri S P Rudramurthy Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri B M Purushothama Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri S R Roopakumar Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board