B.A. Patil, J.

This regular first appeal has been filed by State of Karnataka through Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, IPC Circle, Bidar and the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, KPC Division No. 1, Bidar, assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65/2011, dated 30.1.2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Bidar.

2. Though this appeal has been listed to consider the application filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal, we have nevertheless heard Sri R.V. Nadagouda, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the merits of the matter as it has been brought to our notice that a similar appeal has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are referred to before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are that appellant-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.65/2011 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20.89 lakhs with interest from the defendant-respondent No. 1 herein. It is alleged that defendant was working as an Executive Engineer at IPC Division No. 4, Humnabad for the period from 7.10.1996 to 13.9.1998. During the said period, defendant failed to discharge his duties in accordance with law. He was responsible for purchasing the materials such as MS. Diversion Gate, V.Notches, MS plates, ME outlet gates, Sponge rubber, Micro polythene sheets and hand gloves, etc. for the purpose of Chalukinala Project. Defendant purchased excess material than the actual requirement at exorbitant rates without referring to SPD or KSIMC. It is further alleged that defendant thereby failed in discharging his duties and because of his negligence, the Government sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 20.89 lakhs. It is further alleged that the defendant placed the order without indent from the subordinate officers. He did not obtain the purchase orders from the competent authority before placing the orders and thereby violated the conduct Rules, Store Manuals and Departmental Procedure. It is further alleged that when plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 requested the defendant to pay the said amount, defendant refused to pay the same on 27.8.2010 as such the suit came to be filed for recovery of the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

5. The defendant, after service of summons, entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, alleging that he has retired from service after attaining superannuation on 31.7.2001, neither a departmental enquiry was initiated against him while he was in service nor the Government had passed an order to conduct departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings immediately within four years from the date of his retirement. He contended that as per Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules ('KCSR' for short), the proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, the said proceedings will be without jurisdiction.

6. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by contending that Rule 214(3) of KCSR deals only with conditions of services and not regarding recovery of loss caused by the employees while discharging their duties. It was contended that the suit was of a civil nature and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were attracted. It was further contended that the suit was not barred by limitation since the period of limitation for the State for filing the suit for recovery of the amount is thirty years.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court raised the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within the period of limitation?

2. Whether the defendant has ma