This writ petition is directed against the 4th respondent's order dated 20-2-2001 (Annexure-H) rejecting the petitioner's preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction or Inquiring Authority.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting certain bribe amounts in June 1997. This resulted in the order suspending the petitioner from services on 5-7-1997. This suspension order was revoked on 16-5-1998. Thereafter he retired from service on 31-3-1999. The 1st respondent-Board in exercise of its power conferred by Regulation 11-A(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, ID,'n (hereinafter caned 1987 Regulations') ordered domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was entrusted to the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha. The Deputy Registrar, by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha, issued the articles of charges on 28-3-2000.

3. The petitioner raised the preliminary objections to the holding of the domestic enquiry on two counts: (a) Regulation 11-A(1) of the 1987 Regulations has no application for him, as he has retired from service; (b) The Court of the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Hassan is seized of the whole matter. The contemplated domestic enquiry proceedings and the trial in the criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts; the names of the witnesses and the documents figuring in both the lists are one and the same. Therefore, if he is forced to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings, it would subject him to prejudice in the pending criminal proceedings. The 4th respondent overruled the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner by his order, dated 20-2-2001. Aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and the rejection of his preliminary objections by the 4th respondent, this petition is instituted. By virtue of the granting of the interim order by this Court on 30-1-2001, no further proceedings have taken place.

4. Sri Subba Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for Sri Narayana Bhat appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions.-

(a) (i) No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated, once an employee retires from service. He has relied on a Division Bench Judge of this Court in the case of S. Subba Rao v. State of Mysore and Another1, wherein, it is held that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after the Government servant reaches the age of superannuation. He submits that in the reported case the proceedings were initiated but were not allowed to be completed. But in the instant case, no proceedings were initiated before the petitioner retired;

(ii) Sri Subba Ran also sought to draw support from yet another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K.S. Rajasekhariah v. State of Mysore and Another1, wherein it is held that the disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant comes to an end, when he retires. There is no power in the Government to retain him in service so that a punishment may be imposed on him in the pending disciplinary proceedings;

(iii) He further submits that an employee cannot be suspended and retained in service for the purpose of completing the pending departmental enquiry proceedings. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment in the case of State of Assam and Others v. Padma Ram Borah2;

(b) Sri Subba Rao brings the subsequent development to the notice of this Court by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2001. The Court of Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Hassan has acquitted the petitioner by his judgment dated 27-8-2004. In view of his acquittal, nothing survives for any consideration of the charge-sheet (Annexure-A). He submits that the subject-matter of the charge-sheet (Annexure-A) and the subject-matter of the trial in Special Case No. 14 of 1998 is one and the same. The two are founded on the same set of facts involving the same witnesses and do