Allowed¶59

Sri Basavaraju Paraddi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/20003/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental enquiry after superannuation; interim stay of articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 refused by KSAT and set aside by Karnataka High Court Division Bench (S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao JJ.); four-year limitation bar under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs for enquiry initiated post-retirement; prima facie case; parity with stay granted to C.R.Jayanna in Application No.4401/2025; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; limitation question expressly left open to the Tribunal; WP No. 20003 of 2026; decided 20 July 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 29.04.2026 in Application No.2524/2026 set aside; stay of articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A12) during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal; all contentions of the parties left open. ¶59

Sri Basavaraju Paraddi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's interim prayer for stay of the articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 despite the prima facie case arising from the four-year limitation bar contended under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

Prima facie, the incident on which the alleged articles of charge is issued is beyond four years from the date of the petitioner's retirement i.e., on 31.05.2023.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out by the petitioner for interim stay of the articles of charge.

¶45

Key takeaways

The limitation contention is left to the Tribunal to consider on filing of reply statement by the respondent-State; this Court did not finally decide the question of limitation.obiter¶54
As an additional circumstance supporting the prima facie case, the Tribunal had granted interim order to the co-DGO in the identical charge-memo matter, Application No.4401/2025 (Sri C.R.Jayanna vs. The State of Karnataka).ratio¶54
All contentions of the parties are left open.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 20003 of 2026 (S-KSAT) - allowed. The petitioner, an Assistant Regional Transport Officer who superannuated on 31.05.2023, challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 29.04.2026 in Application No.2524/2026 rejecting his interim prayer for stay of articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A12) pertaining to incidents of 29.06.2017-21.05.2018 and 10.08.2018-26.08.2019. Per S.G. Pandit J.: the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out by the petitioner; prima facie the incident underlying the charge falls beyond four years from the date of retirement, engaging the limitation bar contended under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs, though that contention stands left to the Tribunal to decide on the State's reply statement. Noting that the Tribunal had granted interim stay in the identical charge-memo matter of Sri C.R.Jayanna (Application No.4401/2025), the Division Bench set aside the impugned order, stayed the articles of charge during pendency of the application before the Tribunal, and left all contentions open.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37072-DB WP No. 20003 of 2026

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010439482026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 20003 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI BASAVARAJU PARADDI S/O LATE SHANMUKHAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶12

SUPERANNUATED FROM SERVICE

¶13

AS ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT R/AT NO.145, ASHIRWAD ROYAL PLACID, PHASE - 1, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, HARALUR, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. P S RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶19

COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT 1^ST FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37072-DB WP No. 20003 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CNR: KAHC010439482026

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION NO.2524 OF 2026, BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND (A) QUASH ORDER DATED 29.04.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.2524 OF 2026, (UNDER ANNEXURE-A), IN SO FAR AS IT REJECTS THE INTERIM PRAYER SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶30

Heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for

¶31

Sri.Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the non-grant of interim order of stay of articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-A12) in Application No.2524/2026 on the file of the Karnataka State

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37072-DB WP No. 20003 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CNR: KAHC010439482026

¶36

Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶37

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023 whereas the articles of charge dated 12.08.2025 is issued in respect of

¶38

an event which had taken place between 29.06.2017 to 21.05.2018 and 10.08.2018 to 26.08.2019. Learned senior counsel would submit that in terms of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs, the enquiry initiated beyond four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner is barred by limitation. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the articles of charge is in respect of joint enquiry and that in an identical charge memo issued to one Sri.C.R.Jayanna, the Tribunal granted stay of the articles of charge in Application No.4401/2025. However, in the present application, refusing to stay the charge memo

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37072-DB WP No. 20003 of 2026

¶42

CNR: KAHC010439482026

¶43

observed that it is open for the petitioner to take such contention before the Enquiry Officer.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand would submit that, let the Tribunal decide the question of limitation and prays for passing appropriate order.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out by the petitioner.

¶46

Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service

¶47

on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023, whereas the articles of charge is dated 12.08.2025 relating

¶48

to an incident alleged to have taken place between 29.06.2017 to 21.05.2018 and 10.08.2018 to 26.08.2019.

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37072-DB WP No. 20003 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CNR: KAHC010439482026

¶52

Prima facie, we find that the incident on which

¶53

the alleged articles of charge is issued is beyond four years from the date of petitioner’s retirement i.e., on 31.05.2023. However, it is for the Tribunal to consider the

¶54

said contention on filing of reply statement by the respondent-State. In the above factual position, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Moreover, the Tribunal is said to have granted interim order to Co-DGO in Application No.4401/2025 (Sri.CR.Jayanna vs. The State of Karnataka)

¶55