Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. G. PANDIT, T.M. NADAF, JJ
H.K. Krishnegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms – Respondent
ORDER :
S.G.PANDIT, J.
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 25.09.2024 in Application No.3279/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s prayer to quash the charge memo dated 20.02.2021.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. He retired on 31.05.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to his retirement, charge memo dated 20.02.2021 was served upon him on 06.07.2024. Further, the petitioner would state that the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure-A1) relates to the period between 03.07.2000 to 24.04.2003. Hence, the petitioner contends that the charge memo is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is barred by Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short “KCSRs”) and also that the department could not have initiated enquiry belatedly i.e., after 18 years.
3. On the above stated ground, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.3279/2024 and the Tribunal under impugned order rej
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement can prejudice the defense, warranting quashing of charge memos under Rule 214 of KCSRs.
Prolonged disciplinary proceedings against retired employees without justification can lead to quashing of the proceedings, emphasizing the need for timely action.
Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings against retired employees can lead to quashing of the charges, emphasizing accountability and adherence to specified timelines in the inquiry process.
Delay in departmental proceedings should be considered in light of the gravity of the charges involved, and the definition of 'grave misconduct' is not limited to specific acts mentioned in the rules....
Inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings prejudices the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
