Allowed

Sri.Revanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2026WP/39568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BBMP Revenue Officer challenged a departmental enquiry order and Articles of Charge issued more than four years after his superannuation, beyond the limitation in Rule 214(b)(2) KCSR. Following a Co-ordinate Bench ruling, the High Court quashed both and directed grant of retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.03.2018 and Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018 quashed; respondents directed to consider grant of all benefits to petitioner.

Sri.Revanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 39568 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.REVANNA S/O PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO-235, 1^ST CROSS, YELEKERI, CHANNAPATNA, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT. MOB: 9880890326

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYADEVAIAH J.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶16

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORDER DATED 17/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN NO. UDD 641 MNG 2017 ENTRUSTING THE MATTER TO HOLD THE DEPARTMENT ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE ARTICLES OF CHANGE DATED 29/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE R3 IN NO. UPLOK/1/DE/166/2018/ARE-3 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE-D AND E BY ALLOWING THE WP.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶27

“(a) Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-03-2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 in No.UDD 641 MNG 2017 entrusting the matter to hold the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the articles of charge dated 29-05-2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 in No.U;LOK/1/DE/166/2018/ARE-3 which are at ANNEXURES-D and E by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice, so for as the petitioner is concerned.

¶28

(b) Pass any other order or grant relief which the Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice.”

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA

¶33

for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner, who was working as a local candidate in the health department of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31.01.2013 as Revenue Officer, R.R. Nagar Zone, Bengaluru. After lapse of maximum period of four years as contemplated in Rule 214(b)(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short “the KCSR”) beyond the said period of limitation, the respondents issued the impugned Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018, which was clearly beyond the limitation of four years as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules.

¶35

Under identical circumstances, in the case of Sri. K.T. Puttanna Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.Nos.1343/2022 C/W. W.P.No.2031/2022 dated 25.03.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

¶36

“Learned counsel for the petitioners in both these matters submits that the issue stands covered by a judgment of a Co-ordinate of this Court in the case of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri.M.Chandra Rao V/s The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.7726/2019 dated 15.09.2021. Learned counsel submits that the common ground in all these petitions is that the departmental enquiry is sought to be initiated against the petitioners contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 (herein referred to as ‘KCSRs’ Rules) Considering the said submission, the Coordinate Bench has held that since the Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018 is contrary to limitation prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b)(2) of KCSR, the writ petition was allowed and the Articles of charge dated 29.05.2018 was quashed and set aside.

¶41

2. Having gone through the memorandum of writ petition, this Court finds that even in the case of the petitioners herein, they attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012 and 31.08.2014 respectively.

¶42

3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Loyakutha does not dispute the fact the issuance of Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018 was not only in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.7726/2019, but the same is in respect of the petitioners herein who were DGO’s Nos.4 and 3 respectively.

¶43

4. Consequently, in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench fairly covering the issue as the Articles of charge dated 29.05.2018 issued in respect of the petitioners herein had also fallen for consideration at the hands of the Co-ordinate Bench and it was held that the Articles of charge was issued in contravention of the limitation prescribed

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

under Rule 214(2)(b)(2) of the KCSR, similar benefit is required to be given to the petitioners herein.

¶48

Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed, while

¶49

quashing the Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018 insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶50

Ordered accordingly.”

¶51

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶52

the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.T. Puttanna’s case (supra) , coupled with the fact that the petitioner had undisputedly attained superannuation on 31.01.2023 and the impugned Articles of Charge having been issued on 29.05.2018, undisputedly beyond the maximum period of four years, as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order and Articles of Charge dated 29.05.2018 deserve to be quashed.

¶53

In the result, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶56

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.03.2018 passed by

¶57

respondent No.1 and the impugned Article of Charge dated

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:15087 WP No. 39568 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

29.05.2018 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexures-D and E, respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶62

(iii) The respondents are directed to proceed further and consider the grant of all benefits in favour of the petitioner immediately, upon receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶64

BMC

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri.Revanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Revanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chandrashekarappa S., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Altaf Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sushma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Guru T K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.v. Ramachandra Vs the Managing Director

Dr Shekar H S Vs the State of Karnataka