The court clarified that inquiries against retired government servants can proceed under Rule 214 of KCSR despite Rule 14-A's limitations, affirming the Lokayukta's authority to conduct such inquiries.

ORDER :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

This writ petition is filed by the Lokayukta represented by its Registrar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 18.10.2022 in Application No.10294/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein, the Tribunal quashed the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-A5) to the petitioner solely on the ground that the State could not have entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner in respect of a retired employee under Rule 14-A of KCS (CC &A) Rules, 1957. [hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules”]

2. Heard learned counsel Sri Anil Kale for the petitioner, learned Principal Government Advocate Sri G.K. Hiregoudar for respondent Nos.2 & 3, and learned counsel Sri Satish K. with Sri Suresh Bhat for respondent No.1 and perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel Sri Anil Kale for petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the Order dated 14.05.2019 entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules to the petitioner institution on the ground that the State could not have exercised power under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, to entrust the enquiry to the petitioner in respect of a retired government servant. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to impugned order and submits that the enquiry was entrusted to the petitioner not only under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, but also under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Therefore, he submits that the impugned entrustment order is proper and correct. Further, he submits that merely because the order indicates Rule 14A of CCA Rules, the Tribunal could not have quashed the order of entrustment. He submits that when the State has power to entrust the inquiry against the retired Government servant under Rule 214 of KCSRs, mere mentioning of Rule 14A of CCA Rules would not vitiate entrustment of enquiry to the Lokayukta in respect of a retired Government servant. Further, learned counsel would submit that if this Court were to accept the contention of the petitioner Lokayukta, the time spent before the Tribunal and before this Court shall be deducted for the purpose of issuing articles of charge under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Satish K for respondent No.1 would submit that the entrustment of inquiry under Order dated 14.05.2019 relates to the incidents alleged to have taken place during the year 2017- 2018 and as such, he submits that no articles of charge could be issued as on this day against respondent No.1.Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is ‘whether the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order of entrustment dated 14.05.2019 issued under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules solely on the ground that the said provision could not have been invoked against a retired government servant?’

6. The answer to the above point would be in negative for the following reasons:-

7. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. Subsequent to his retirement, the second respondent under Government Order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure A5) entrusted the inquiry against respondent No.1 to the petitioner Lokayukta under Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs r/w Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. It is true that the provisions of CCA Rules cannot be invoked against a retired government servant. However, Rule 214 pr