ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The question raised in this writ petition is with regard to the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner.

3. It is submitted that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri. S V Appannappa Patil to the Lokayukta police, a trap was laid on the applicant who was the then working as the Assistant Director of mid-day meal on 08.12.2008. It is stated that on the basis of the trap laid, a criminal case was registered against him as Special case No. 152/2011. However, the respondents chose not to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner, and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case as per Annexure-A1 dated 03.01.2019. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had been denied promotion to the cadre of High School Head Master and Education Officer.

4. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal by filing an application in Application No. 3900/2020 seeking consideration of his claim for retrospective promotion, on the basis of the order of acquittal by the criminal Court. This application was allowed on 02.12.2020 and the respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate orders. Since no further action was taken, the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings in CTA No.7/2022 against respondent No.1, and by notification dated 04.03.2022, retrospective promotions were granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter, on the basis of the trap laid on

08.12.2008 and on the very same facts which had led to the petitioner's acquittal in special case No. 152/2011, the second respondent issued an inspection note on 06.12.2021 and articles of charge were issued on 24.01.2023, on the basis of the report forwarded by the Upalokayukta under Section 12(3)

of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the trap was laid on 08.12.2008, there is an undue and unexplained delay of more than 15 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel would also place reliance on Section 8 (2)(d) and Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to contend that any complaint preferred after a period of 5 years from the alleged incident could have been considered by the Lokayukta only if the complainant satisfies the Lokayukta that he has sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in the said clause. It is contended that since Section 7(2) is specifically made subject to the other provisions of the Act, the power of the Lokayukta to initiate suo-moto proceedings against the petitioner would also be incompetent after 5 years, unless there is a clear reason as to why there was such an unexplained delay.

7. It is submitted that in the instant case, there was absolutely no whisper of any reason for the delay caused, and that the tribunal ought to have found that the initiation of proceedings was hopelessly delayed.

8. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta would contend that the delay in initiating the proceedings has to be considered on a case-to-case basis and that there can be no blanket power either to the tribunal or this Court to set aside the initiation of disciplinary proceedings simply on the ground of delay. It is contended by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. v. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 that the charge-sheet or show-cause notice issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings cannot ordinarily be quashed by the Court, even on the ground of the delay and that the gravity and magnitude of charges have to be considered by the Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal had specifically considered the facts of the matter and had held that there was a delay of onl