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