The State of Karnataka Vs M Shashidhar

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)CALL FOR RECORDS b) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-53/2017 AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF)

¶38

“ Procrastination is the thief of time ”

¶39

" Night-Thoughts” – Edward Young

¶40

The State of Karnataka is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question Order dated 04.06.2019 in Application No.53/2017, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, ( ‘Tribunal’ for short), allowing the application, setting aside the order impugned dated 28.05.2016 ( Annexure-A2 ) passed by first respondent ( petitioner ) and the Articles of Charges issued dated 20.10.2016 ( Annexure-A3 ) by third respondent ( second respondent in the petition ).

¶41

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶42

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In relation with an allegation that the applicant on 13.06.2014, demanded illegal gratification from one Sri.Naveen, a resident of Davanagere for an official favour, so also on disproportionate assets known to his source of income, the applicant was kept under suspension vide Government order dated 14.08.2014. Later on, the order of suspension was revoked pending departmental enquiry. The applicant has retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2015.

¶46

The Government vide order dated 28.05.2016 ( Annexure-A2 ) entrusted departmental enquiry against the applicant to the Karnataka Lokayukta invoking power under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 ( ‘KCSRs’ for short).

¶47

Upon entrustment, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who issued Articles of Charge dated 20.10.2016 ( Annexure-A3 ). Aggrieved by the order of

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

entrustment, so also the Articles of Charge, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.53/2017.

¶51

The main contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was, Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules, 1957 (‘ CCA Rules, 1957’ for short) does not empower Government to entrust enquiry against retired Government servants to the Lokayukta, as such Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957, cannot be invoked against the retired Government servant. For applicability of KCSR Rules, the person befit within Rule 3 of CCA Rules, which states that it is applicable only to Government servants working and not to retired. He had further stated the date of events which have got a bearing on the adjudication of lis viz., that the alleged incident had taken place on 13.06.2014, applicant retired from service on 30.06.2015. Entrustment order was issued on 28.05.2016 and Articles of Charge were issued on

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

20.10.2016. On this he had submitted that the, Entrustment order was bad in law and all the consequences flowing from it gets vitiated and sought to allow the application.

¶55

The State as well as the Karnataka

¶56

Lokayukta had taken stand that there is no bar to entrust enquiry to the Lokayukta even against a retired Government servant invoking Rule 214(2)(b)(i) of KCSRs, as the incident alleged is within four years from the date of retirement before the institution of departmental enquiry. The Tribunal considering Rule 214 of KCSRs particularly emphasizing on 2(b)(i), which prescribes that ‘the departmental proceedings if not initiated while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be initiated the same with the sanction of Government’.

¶57

The Tribunal having extracted the entire Rule 214 of KCSRs, was of the opinion that the Rule does not empower the Government to entrust

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

departmental enquiry against retired Government servant to the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Tribunal has held that the order of entrustment is untenable in law. Further, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the provisions of Karanataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘ Act of 1984’ for short) cannot be pressed against a retired Government servant in view of definition of Government servant as per Section 2(6) of Act of 1984, which reads as under:

¶61

2(6). “Government servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or any person, whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka”.

¶62

The Tribunal observed that the definition

¶63

of Government servant in Rule 2(d) of CCA Rules is in same line with Section 2(6) of Act of 1984. In that view of the matter the entrustment under Rule 14-A

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

of CCA Rules cannot be pressed against a pensioner. The Tribunal reasoned its opinion by stating that the definition under Rule 2(d) of CCA Rules does not include a ‘ retired Government servant’ . Having so held, the Tribunal allowed the application, quashed the order of entrustment as well as Articles of Charge stated supra in respect of the applicant. However, reserving liberty to the Government to examine the initiation of departmental proceedings against applicant for the reasons stated in paragraph No.8 of the order. It is this order that is called in question by the State after a considerable delay of six years four months ( petition filed on 18.10.2025 ).

¶67

Heard Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for the petitioner/State of Karnataka. Perused the entire writ papers.

¶68

On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly after six years four months, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy trying

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

to impress upon us, relies on paragraph No.7 of the writ petition. A perusal of paragraph No.7 shows that there is a Government order on 19.11.2020 for preferring the petition. Even from 19.11.2020, there is nothing to explain properly the delay in filing the petition belatedly by another five years. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by latches too.

¶72

The doctrine of delay and latches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising power under Articles 226 is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶73

The State cannot claim any exception to the case when there is delay and latches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. As the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45948-DB WP No. 31798 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

of the entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of six years four months is fatal to the case on hand. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected, and is accordingly rejected.

¶77

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶78

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶79

RR

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The State of Karnataka v. M Shashidhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. M Shashidhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Penchalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Lokayukta Vs Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Union of India Vs Atashi Mukherjee

Manager Vs Smt N R Rekha

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav Vs Deputy Inspector General of Police

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka