Inordinate delays in disciplinary proceedings and filing of petitions can lead to dismissal of cases, undermining fairness and justifying refusal of remedy.

ORDER :

K. V. ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in Application No. 387/2008 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. Respondent No. 3, while serving as Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Bengaluru Development Authority, a complaint came to be filed against him alleging that he had put up a false note recommending payment of compensation in favour of one Smt. Rajamma in respect of Sy. No. 11 of Venkojirao Khana Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 7 acres 30 guntas, to the tune of Rs. 8,67,535/-. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the petitioner, who submitted a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'), recommending initiation of disciplinary enquiry and entrustment of the same to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1, by order dated 30.03.2001, entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the KCS (CCA) Rules'). Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.06.2001 and Articles of Charge were issued. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.02.2005 holding that the charges against respondent No. 3 stood proved.

3.1 A recommendation was thereafter made to the competent authority on 18.11.2005 to impose penalty of permanent withholding of the entire pension. The second show-cause notice was issued on 07.12.2005. Respondent No. 3 submitted his reply and, by order dated 04.07.2007, penalty of withholding 20% of monthly pension permanently came to be imposed, deviating from the recommendation of the petitioner.

3.2 The said order of penalty was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, modified the penalty by directing withholding of 20% of monthly pension only till 31.03.2019, on the grounds that the proceedings were delayed by more than 10 years and that the reply to the show-cause notice had not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

4. Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and modify the penalty imposed. It is contended that if, for any reason, the penalty imposed was found unsustainable, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry proceedings were completed within a reasonable time, and that the pendency of the application before the Tribunal cannot be a ground to interfere with or modify the penalty.

5. Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ papers, two aspects emerge for consideration: firstly, the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings; and secondly, the delay in filing the writ petition.

7. The alleged incident pertains to the year 1990. The preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 24.08.1999. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.06.2001, and