An enquiry against a retired officer for pre-retirement actions is barred after a specified period under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Delay in filing a writ petition without justification results in dismissal.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

2. The Karnataka Lokayukta has approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 26.06.2019 in Application No.971/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal set aside the enquiry initiated against Respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had retired from service prior to the issuance of the Articles of Charge.

3. Respondent No. 2, while serving as Panchayath Development Officer, Kusanur Grama Panchayath, Kalaburagi, had a complaint registered against him on 14.07.2014 before the petitioner, in respect of an alleged incident dated 20.03.2012. The Government entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta, and Articles of Charge were issued on 18.04.2017. Respondent No. 2 retired from service upon attaining superannuation on 31.04.2015. The complaint pertained to alleged inaction by Respondent No. 2 regarding the construction of a house without a licence on a public road. Respondent No. 2 submitted his reply on 27.04.2016. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the complainant as PW1. However, the Enquiry Officer proceeded further without providing an opportunity for cross-examination of PW1 or to record defence evidence. These proceedings were subsequently brought before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the grounds urged, held that since the Delinquent Government Officer had retired on 31.04.2015, the Articles of Charge dated 18.04.2017, issued over two years after retirement, were not maintainable. It was further held that an enquiry cannot be initiated without the sanction of the Government.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding of the Tribunal, to the effect that the proceedings could not be continued by the petitioner-Institution after the retirement of the Delinquent Government Officer (DGO), is erroneous. It is further submitted that the petitioner-Institution retains jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry even after the retirement of the DGO, if the alleged incident pertains to the period during which he was in service.

5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1, supports the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and of the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

7. For the reasons discussed hereinafter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

7.1 Firstly, the order of the Tribunal is dated 26.06.2019, whereas the writ petition has been filed on 21.06.2022, nearly three years thereafter. The averments in the petition do not furnish any explanation for the delay. When queried by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has no justification for the same. While there is no statutory limitation for filing a writ petition, the exercise of this right must be within a reasonable time. A delay of nearly three years cannot, by any measure, be regarded as reasonable.

7.2 It is relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 on delay in filing the writ petition at paragraphs 9 to 13, which read thus:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approac