Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement can prejudice the defense, warranting quashing of charge memos under Rule 214 of KCSRs.

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 rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that Rule 214 of KCSRs would not assist the petitioner and also holding that it is not a case for quashing the Articles of Charge. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois for petitioner through video conference and learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois would contend that the charge memo dated 20.02.2021 was served upon the petitioner only on 06.07.2024 much subsequent to petitioner’s retirement on 31.05.2021. Learned counsel placing reliance on Rule 214 of KCSRs would contend that since the incident on which the charge memo issued relates to the years 2000 to 2003, the charge memo is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs, since no enquiry could be initiated against a retired Government servant in respect of an incident that had taken place more than 4 years prior to his retirement.

6. Nextly, learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois contends that initiation of enquiry in respect of an incident which alleged to have taken place between the years 2000 to 2003 is impermissible. As there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating enquiry, the charge memo requires to be quashed. Learned counsel would submit that there is no explanation for delay of more than 18 years in initiating enquiry either in the charge memo or in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal. It is contended that delay in initiating enquiry has prejudiced the defense of the petitioner. As the delay is not explained, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief as prayed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA Sri.Rojipura would submit that the contention that the charge memo is barred by Rule 214 of KCSRs is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the charge memo is dated 20.02.2021 and the charge memo was despatched for service on the petitioner while he was in service. He submits that the date of issuance of charge memo would be relevant and not the date of service. Thus, learned AGA would pray for rejection of the said contention. Further, learned AGA would submit that no charge memo could be quashed as the charge memo itself would not give cause of action to come before this Court. The petitioner would not become