Disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued, and proceedings against a retired employee for events more than four years prior to initiation are not sanctioned by law.

JUDGMENT

M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the proceedings of the government dated 21.03.2017 and the charge sheet issued against the petitioner on 04.05.2017.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a peon on 26.03.1977 in the Mysore City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation for short) and was subsequently promoted to the cadre of Attender and later to the cadre of Second Division Assistant. Having regard to the degree of Engineering that he possessed, he was promoted as a Draftsman with effect from 01.07.1995 and as a Junior Engineer with effect from 06.02.2004. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016 in the cadre of Junior Engineer.

3. Just before the retirement of the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Corporation had addressed a letter recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On receipt of the said recommendation, the State Government by a communication dated 21.03.2017 directed the second respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for alleged misconduct in terms of Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules for short).

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the second respondent issued a charge sheet against the petitioner on 04.05.2017. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 24.06.2017 contending that he is a retired employee and the charge sheet is seeking to enquire into the incidents of 2006 and 2008 which is clearly barred under the said Rules. Notwithstanding the reply of the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by an order dated 26.07.2017 seeking to conduct enquiry in terms of the aforesaid charge sheet. The petitioner filed an application before the Enquiry Officer contending that the initiation of the proceedings was contrary to the Rules. The Enquiry Officer rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2018. It is at that stage, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the communication dated 21.03.2017 and the charge sheet dated 04.05.2017.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Narayana Bhat appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Venkat Satyanarayan A, HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

6. The learned counsel Sri. Narayana Bhat, would contend that the initiation of enquiry is completely barred under Rule 214 of the said Rules as the incident sought to be enquired into are of the year 2006 and 2008. As could be seen from the charge sheet and the proceedings if allowed to continue would be a proceeding without jurisdiction.

7. On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for the first and second respondents would contend that the recommendation for initiation of proceedings was on 17.10.2016 when the petitioner was in service and hence would contend that would be the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and what is challenged is a charge sheet, which this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would rarely interfere at this stage.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record. In furtherance thereof, the following points arise for my consideration:

1. Whether disciplinary proceedings commenced on the date on which the recommendation was made by the corporation on 17.10.2016 when the petitioner was in service?

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated have a sanction in law?

9. Re.Point No.1

9.1. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016, a recommendation was made for initiation of proceedings on 17.10.2016 about a fortnight before the petitioner retired. A mere recommendation for initiation of proceedings cannot amount to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It is