Dr K C Jayaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

DR K C JAYASWAMY AGED 60 YEARS, S/O C CHANNAIAH, RETIRED AS PRINCIPAL O/O SRI SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE, FOR WOMEN, TUMKUR, B H ROAD, R/A HONALU, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, VALMIKI NAGAR, TUMKUR 572103.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA N.B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA KALIDASA MARG, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560001

¶21

THE PRESIDENT SREE SIDDAGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) SIDDAGANGA MUTT, KYATHSANDRA TUMKUR - 572104.

¶22

THE PRINCIPAL SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN BH ROAD, TUMKUR - 572102.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 19/08/2023 ORDER BEARING NO. SSES 1544/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-L) AND ALL OTHER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET. b) DECLARE THAT INITIATION OF A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE RETIREMENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. C) DECLARE THAT THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AFTER THE RETIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN RESERVED BY THE MANAGEMENT IN THE RELIVING ORDER DATED 29/04/2023 BEARING NO. SSCW.36/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-K) AND ISSUANCE OF THE FRESH ARTICLES OF CHARGES AFTER THE RETIREMENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DECLARED AS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the charge sheet dated 19.08.2023 order bearing No. SSES 1544/2023-24 (Annexure-L) and all other further proceedings in pursuance of the chargesheet.

¶33

b) Declare that initiation of a disciplinary proceedings after the retirement is without jurisdiction and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶34

c) Declare that the right to initiate the disciplinary action or right to continue the disciplinary action after the retirement has not been reserved by the management in in the reliving order dated 29.04.2023 bearing No. SSCW: 36/2023-24 (Annexure-K) and issuance of the fresh articles of charges after the retirement is illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be declared as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

d) Direct the respondents to fix the pension and pay the retiremental benefits.

¶39

e) Pass any appropriate direction or order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶41

2.1. The petitioner, who served as a Lecturer in the Commerce department and rose through the ranks to become the Principal of the college, faces a disciplinary action initiated by the management after retirement. The allegations were primarily revolved around the collection of development charges during COVID-19 pandemic, with the petitioner contending adherence to the Government directives that permitted only the authorized fees. The petitioner, while acknowledging the notices and responding to them, asserted that there was no misappropriation of funds and urges that the circumstances compelled leniency in collecting development charges due to economic hardships faced by

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

students. The petitioner emphasizes that, the order of relieving from service did not reserve the right for a postretirement disciplinary enquiry, challenging the subsequent issue of a memos, withholding of DCRG and provisional pension fixation. In response to the management's actions, the petitioner seeks relief from the Court asserting the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings post-retirement is unwarranted, as no reservation for such actions was specified in the relieving order. The petitioner contends that, the alleged misconduct related to the collection of the development charges, was within the parameters of the Government directives during the pandemic and does not warrant a disciplinary action. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, which is without jurisdiction and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Respondents No.4 and 5 filed a statement of objections admitting that, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Commerce Department in respondents No.4 and 5-Institution on 25.06.1987. On 21.03.2022, respondents No.4 and 5 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under Rules 37 and 38 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 read with Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules ('KCSRs' for short) on the ground that, the petitioner has caused a huge loss to the respondents-Institution by misappropriating the amount without collecting the development charges. Charge sheet came to be issued on 19.08.2023. It is contented that the charge sheet is issued in accordance with Rule 214 of the KCSRs. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition against the respondents No.4 and 5.

¶49

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶50

petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶55

the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2023. After retirement, respondents No.4 and 5 issued an article of charges alleging that, the petitioner has misappropriated the funds during COVID-19 pandemic regarding the development charges by taking a lenient view. He submits that, after retirement, if the management wants to initiate a departmental enquiry, the management has to seek a sanction from the Government as per Rule 214(2)(b)(i). Respondents No.4 and 5, without obtaining any sanction from the Government, initiated disciplinary enquiry. The initiation of disciplinary enquiry is contrary to Rule 214 of the KCSRs. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶56

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that, the petitioner committed misappropriation of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic and she submits that, the respondents-Institution have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner along with the

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

article of charges. The article of charges are issued in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Collegiate Education Rules and Rule No.214 of KCSRs. She contends that, there is a circular issued by the Government that there is no necessity to take a sanction from the Government for initiating a disciplinary enquiry against the retired employee. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶60

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶61

adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶62

Perused the records and considered the

¶63

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in respondents No.4 and 5- Institution. He retired as a Principal of the said College on 30.04.2023. After retirement, respondents No.4 and 5

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

issued a show-cause notice along with the article of charges. The show-cause notice was issued prior to the retirement, but article of charges was issued after retirement. Respondents No.4 and 5 have initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner post-retirement.

¶68

To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine

¶69

clause (2)(b) of Rule 214 of the KCSRs:

¶70

"214(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,-

¶71

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government.

¶72

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and

¶73

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

From the bare reading of clause (2) of Rule 214, it discloses that, the departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the Authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. The departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was during his service, shall not be instituted with the sanction of the Government.

¶78

A specific query was put to learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 whether respondents No.4 and 5 have obtained sanction from Government prior to initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 fairly submits that respondents No.4 and 5 have not obtained sanction from

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the Government for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Respondents No.4 and 5, without obtaining sanction from the Government, have initiated the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondents No.4 and 5 is contrary to Rule 214 of the KCSRs. Though the learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 places reliance on the circular dated 16.03.2006 issued by the Government, the Rule specifically prescribes that the management, before initiating departmental proceedings against the retired employee, there is no need to obtain sanction from the Government. Further, there is no reference about the said circular in the show-cause notice, nor in the article of charges; further there is no reference even in the statement of objections. The Rule is very clear. The article of charges issued by respondents No.4 and 5 to the petitioner is contrary to Rule 214. Hence, on these grounds, article of charges is liable to be set aside.

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:40761 WP No. 21700 of 2023

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶87

pass the following:

¶88

ORDER

¶89

i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part ;

¶90

ii. Charge sheet dated 19.08.2023 vide Annexure-L is set aside, reserving the liberty to respondents No.4 and 5 to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law;

¶91

iii. All contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶92

iv. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶93

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶94

PA

¶95

CT:KHV

¶96

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Dr K C Jayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K C Jayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M R Sadhashivappa Vs the Director (a and Hr)

Smt Amrith B Kiran Vs Mangalore Catholic Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt Priyanka Vs the Chief Manager

Sri.Lakshman B D Vs the State of Karnataka

T S Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

The Management of Vs Smt Pratibha Daisy