Allowed

Sri S P Rudramurthy v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/7316/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an article of charges issued to a retired employee for an incident occurring more than four years prior. The Court held that initiating proceedings beyond the four-year period prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules was unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness due to delayed evidence and memory loss.

What did the court decide?

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

Sri S P Rudramurthy Vs Bangalore Water Supply and… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9957 WP No. 7316 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. 7316 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S P RUDRAMURTHY, S/O LATE D S PUTTARUDRA SHETTY, AGE 65 YEARS, RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, R/O NO. 36/3, 2ND ROSS, G BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGARA,

¶8

BANGALORE - 560092.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUERY BHAVAN BANGLAORE - 560009.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY Location: HIGH AUTHORITY COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN NUMBER DATED 18/12/2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:9957 WP No. 7316 of 2021

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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-C.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

The controversy in the captioned petition

¶25

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 incident dated 05.06.2008 to 13.06.2012. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, KCSR Rules) reads as under:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:9957 WP No. 7316 of 2021

¶28

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

¶29

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 31.05.2016, 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

¶30

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

¶31

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,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:9957 WP No. 7316 of 2021

¶34

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.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9957 WP No. 7316 of 2021

¶36

I have also given my anxious consideration to

¶37

the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in similar

¶38

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.

¶39

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶40

proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii. The impugned article of charges cum show cause notice as per Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

HDK

Sri S P Rudramurthy v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S P Rudramurthy 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

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 M Ramakrishna 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