Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44603
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.17708/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI ANIL KUMAR
S/O PADMAKAR BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/A NO.269, GURU DHAMA
6TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
JANAPRIA APARTMENT ROAD,
KENCHANAHALLI, R R NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 098.
2.
SRI T. MALLANNA
S/O SIDRAMAPPA TAYAMAGOL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NOW RESIDING AT 176,
SRINIVASA 201, 2ND FLOOR,
BANK COLONY KOTI,
HOSAHALLI, SHANKARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RANGANATH S. JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER,
3RD AND 4TH FLOOR,
2
KAVERIBHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED CHARGE
MEMO
NOTICE
BEARING
NO.KaGruMam/Aadalitha/Sisha/PR45/2012-13
DATED
21.6.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE R2 AND THE
ORDER BEARING NO.KaGruMam/Aadalitha/Sisha 1.PR45/2012-
13 DATED 20.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE R2,
PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF 214 OF KCSR, AND ARTICLE 14, 16(1) AND 20(2)
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ranganatha S. Jois
for the petitioners, learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois for respondent No.1 and
learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar for respondent
No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners retired from second
respondent 3 the Karnataka Housing Board (for short
KHB) on attaining the age of superannuation on
3
30.06.2018 and 31.08.2020 respectively. Subsequent to
their retirement, Annexure-C, Charge Memo dated
21.06.2022 is issued to the petitioners initiating enquiry
in respect of an event taken place in the year 2005-06.
Learned counsel would submit that in terms of Rule 214
(2) (b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules [for short
KCSRs], Charge memo would not be maintainable and
no enquiry could be initiated against a retired person in
respect of an event which had taken place more than
four years prior to institution of enquiry against retired
Government Servant. Thus, he submits that only on the
ground that initiation of enquiry under Annexure-C,
Charge Memo dated 21.06.2022 is barred under Rule
214 (2) (b)(ii) of the KCSRs, it is liable to be set aside.
3.
Learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar on
instructions would submit that initially enquiry was
initiated against the petitioners while they were in
service
on
28.09.2013
and
thereafter
under
Annexure-B, order dated 21.08.2014, petitioners were
exonerated of the Charges. Subsequently on the
4
recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, the
present proceedings is initiated. Thus, he submits that
there is continuation of cause of action. Hence, he
justifies
the
Charge
Memo
issued
against
the
petitioners.
4.
It is not in dispute that petitioners retired on
30.06.2018 and 31.08.2020 respectively on attaining
the
age
of
superannuation.
Charge
Memo
at
Annexure-C dated 21.06.2022 was issued subsequent
to retirement of petitioners. The first charge against the
petitioners reads as follows:
<(1) ²æÃ.n.ªÀÄ®ètÚ, PÁAiÀÄð¥Àð®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ,
¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj, UÀÄ®âUÁð ºÁUÀÆ (2) ²æÃ.C¤¯ï
PÀĪÀiÁgï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ,
PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ »AzÉ
¨É¼ÀUÁA PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀið¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¤ªÀÄä
¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À
ºÁUÀÆ
PÀvÀðªÀå
¤®ðPÀëvɬÄAzÀ
¨É¼ÀUÁA f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀAPÀ£ÀªÁr UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð
ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.7J ºÁUÀÆ
8J
gÀ°è
15-19
JPÀgÉ
d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß
¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁr, vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ
G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj,
¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ®
gÀªÀgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ
5
26.08.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è læAiÀįï
¦mïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è 8 jAzÀ 10 Cr vÀUÀÄÎ
vÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÀnÖ ¥ÁAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÁV
w½¹zÀÝgÀÆ
¸ÀzÀj
d«Ää£À°è
ªÀ¸Àw
AiÉÆÃd£É
PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB PÁªÀÄUÁj C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ
¥ÀæªÁºÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄļÀÄUÀrAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ
¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀÄUÁjUÁV gÀÆ.1.99 PÉÆÃn ªÉZÀÑ ¨sÀj¹
ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj. EzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä
GzÁ¹Ã£ÀvÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.=
A reading of the above Charge would clearly
indicates that the Charge is against an incident which
had taken place in the year 2006.
6.
Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs reads thus:
<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 before
such institution.=
6
The above Rule which is applicable to the
employees of KHB would not permit initiation of enquiry
in respect of an event which took place more than 4
years before such institution in respect of a retired
employee.
7.
In the case on hand, initiation of enquiry
and issuance of Charge Memo dated 21.06.2022
(Annexure-C) is in respect of an event which took place
more than 4 years before such institution against
retired petitioners. Thus, the institution of enquiry
under Charge Memo is barred by Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of
KCSRs. Thus, the Charge Memo is not sus
