Dismissed¶36

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Shri. Mohana R

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2025WP/9004/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Limitation for initiating disciplinary enquiry against retired government servant; four-year limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) Karnataka Civil Services Rules reckoned from date of event; rule of repose and peace protecting retirees; no condonation of delay provision; recurring/continuing cause of action argument based on 2012 land-handover direction rejected; Karnataka Lokayukta v. retired Tahsildar; KSAT order upheld in effect; certiorari under Articles 226/227 refused; petition dismissed, costs made easy.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition is dismissed; costs were made easy (no costs awarded); Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the private respondent by Speed Post immediately. ¶36

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Shri. Mohana R — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition is dismissed; costs were made easy (no costs awarded); Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the private respondent by Speed Post immediately.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 by order dated 6.11.2020, relating to an event that happened long ago, was barred by the four-year limitation prescribed by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, so as to sustain the Tribunal's order voiding the entrustment. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Interference declined: the Court broadly agrees with the reasoning of the Tribunal, which operated Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules prescribing a limitation period of four years to be reckoned from the date of the event, and the event in this case happened long ago.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Rule 214(2)(b) is a rule of repose and peace (borrowing the words of Salmond's Jurisprudence); its object is to let the retiree live in peace in the evening of his life after long public service; there is no provision for condonation of delay.

¶31

Key takeaways

The contention that the 2012 direction for handover of the granted land has a continuum and gives rise to a recurring cause of action is difficult to countenance; if accepted, it would strike at the very prescription of the limitation period. Accordingly the recurring-cause-of-action argument fails.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ.; order per Krishna S Dixit, J.), by Oral Order dated 01.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 9004 of 2023 (S-KSAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the Karnataka Lokayukta's petition seeking certiorari against the KSAT Bengaluru order dated 17.02.2021 in A.No.396/2021 (Annexure-A), which had favoured the application of a retired Tahsildar and voided the entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 made by order dated 6.11.2020. Held, broadly agreeing with the Tribunal: Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules prescribes a four-year limitation to be reckoned from the date of the event, and the event here occurred long ago; the rule is one of repose and peace meant to let the retiree live in peace after long public service, and there is no provision for condonation of delay; nor does the 2012 direction for handover of the granted land (if necessary with police help) create a recurring cause of action, since accepting such a contention would defeat the very prescription of limitation. Costs made easy; Registry to send a copy of the order to the private respondent by Speed Post.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:13552-DB WP No. 9004 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9004 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHRI. MOHANA R, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE B R RANGAPPA, RTD. TAHSILDAR, R/AT NO 75, “CHIGURU”, 2^ND CROSS, KPSC LAYOUT, JNANABHARATHI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 056.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN A.No.396/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ii) AWARD THE COST OF THIS WP.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13552-DB WP No. 9004 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶25

The Karnataka Lokayukta is invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Tribunal’s order dated 17.2.2021 whereby, private respondent’s Application No.396/2021 having been favoured, the entrustment of disciplinary enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, vide order dated 6.11.2020 has been voided.

¶26

Learned AGA appears for respondent No.2.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner & AGA and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal which has operated Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. This provision prescribes a limitation period of four years to be reckoned

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13552-DB WP No. 9004 of 2023

¶30

from the date of event which in the instant case happened

¶31

long long ago. The object of prescribing limitation of the kind is to let the retiree to live in peace in the evening of his life, having put in long public service. Rule 214(2)(b) is a rule of repose and peace, to borrow the words of Salmond’s Jurisprudence. There is no provision for condonation of delay, either.

¶32

The vehement submission of Panel Counsel appearing for the Lokayukta that the direction to handover the possession of granted land to the grantee if necessary by taking recourse to police help was issued in 2012 itself and that the direction has the effect of continuum and therefore, it would give rise to recurring cause of action, is bit difficult to countenance. The reasons for this is obvious. If such a contention is accepted, that would strike the death knell of very prescription of limitation period. Admittedly, the private respondent demitted the office on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2018.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:13552-DB WP No. 9004 of 2023

¶35

In the above circumstances, this petition is liable to

¶36

be & accordingly, dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶37

Registry to send a copy of this order to the private

¶38

respondent by Speed Post, immediately.

¶39