SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 43850

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

WRIT PETITION No.20378/2021 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SHAMAN.V

W/O LATE NAGESH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

OCC: RETIRED REVENUE OFFICER

R/AT B 403, SKYLINE, BAGMANE

CHAMPIONS HILL, SOUTH AVENUE

GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE-560083.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.J.M.JAYADEVAIAH., ADV.)

AND:

1 .

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA

BANGALORE-560001.

2 .

THE COMMISSIONER

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.

3 .

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.P.SRINIVAS, PRL. GA. FOR R1;

SRI.B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2;

SRI.H.D.KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI.V.S.ARABATTI, ADV. FOR R3.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.1 ENTRUSTING THE MATTER TO HOLD THE

2

DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE

ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 12.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURES-C AND D BY

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS

CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

The petitioner, a retired Revenue Officer of second

respondent 3 Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

[BBMP] is before this Court under Articles 226 of the

Constitution of India questioning the correctness and

legality of Articles of charge dated 12.11.2020 bearing

No.UPLOK-1/DE-189/2020/ARE-9 and Charge Memo

bearing No.£ÀCE 20 JAJ£ïf 2020, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated

19.10.2020

entrusting

the

enquiry

to

the

Upalokayuktha to hold the departmental enquiry

against the petitioner and the others under Rule 14-A of

Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and

Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short the Rules].

2.

Heard

the

learned

counsel

Sri.J.M.Jayadevaiah for the petitioner, learned Principal

Government Advocate Sri.T.P.Srinivas for respondent

3

No.1,

learned

counsel

Sri.B.V.Muralidhar

for

respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.H.D.Kumar for

learned counsel Sri.V.S.Arabatti for the respondent

No.3.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner retired from service from the

second respondent 3 BBMP on attaining the age of

superannuation on 30.08.2014. After more than 6 years

from the date of retirement of the petitioner, the

respondent No.1 entrusted the enquiry against the

petitioner and others under Government Order dated

19.10.2020 [Annexure-C] to Upalokayuktha under Rule

14-A of the Rules and in turn, the third respondent

issued Articles of Charge dated 12.10.2020, in respect

of an incident which had taken place during the years

2007 and 2009. Learned counsel would submit that the

enquiry against a retired person for an incident more

than 4 years prior to her retirement would not be

maintainable in terms of Rule 214 (2) (b)(ii) of the

Karnataka Civil Services Rules [for short KCSRs].

4

Learned counsel would further submit that entrusting

of enquiry to the third respondent and issuing of the

Articles of Charge by third respondent is without

jurisdiction and opposed to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the

KCSRs. Only on this ground, it is submitted that the

Charge memo as well as entrustment of enquiry is liable

to be quashed.

4.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

Sri.B.V.Muralidhar for respondent No.2 would submit

that in terms of the report under Section 12[3] of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 [for short 1984 Act],

under order dated 26.05.2020 the enquiry was referred

to Upalokayuktha and Articles of Charges were issued

under the impugned order. It is submitted that since

the incident had come to light subsequent to retirement

of the petitioner, the enquiry is initiated against the

petitioner and other officials.

5.

Learned counsel Sri.H.D.Kumar for learned

counsel Sri.V.S.Arabatti for the respondent No.3 would

5

submit that the allegation is not only against the

petitioner and it also involves other employees. The

incident beginning from 2007 to 2017 is taken to

initiate the enquiry against the officials. Thus, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents pray for

dismissal of the writ petition.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents

and on going through the writ petition, the only point

that arises for consideration is,

<Whether the impugned Articles of

Charges dated 12.11.2020 is hit by Rule

214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs?=

Answer to the above point is held in the Affirmative for

the following reasons:

A perusal of the Articles of Charge would indicate

that the petitioner was working in the Bommanahalli

Division, BBMP from 30.08.2010 to 26.04.2013. The

enquiry against the petitioner is for an incident that

6

while she was working in Bommanahalli Division as

Revenue Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.08.2014.

7.

Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs reads as follows:

<214

(2)

(b)

The

departmental

proceedings, if not instituted

while the

Government servant was in service, whether

before his retirement or during his re-

employment.

(i) &..

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event

which took place more than four years b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top