Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20703
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.G.PANDIT, T.M.NADAF, JJ
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR M S BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001 – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT IV FLOOR, GATE NO.3 M S BUILDING – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 2715 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti
For the Respondents: Sri.B Ravindranath
Penalty based on incidents occurring more than four years prior invalid under rules governing conduct and discipline.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) - Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) - Entails that punishment for misconduct cannot be imposed after four years from the date of incident - Tribunal improperly set aside withholding penalty for respondent No.2, who retired in 2011 for conduct between 2005-2010, beyond permissible time. (Paras 3-6)
(B) The Court determined that the charge memo issued after a four-year lapse from the incident is invalid under KCSRs, affirming the Tribunal's ruling of impropriety in quashing the penalty without adequate jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner disputes the Tribunal's decision to annul a penalty for misconduct against respondent No.2, arguing the penalty was justified as per defined rules and time constraints.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims, as the disciplinary action was unauthorized based on timing related to the incident.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of KCSRs regarding the timeline for imposing penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the penalty imposed was in contravention of the stipulated time limits within the governing rules, thereby affirming the Tribunal's finding.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of improper penalty quashing. (Para 2) |
| 2. claim against penalty with supporting misconduct evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's findings on penalty applicability and timing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. final ruling on petition dismissal. (Para 7) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti would submit that the respondent No.2 as well as one more Government servant approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.3060 & 3061/2018 questioning the order of penalty dated 10.06.2015 imposing penalty of withholding of 5% of pension and recovery and against the other person, punishment of withholding three annual increment for a period of five years and also recovery. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 30.03.2021 insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, allowed the application on setting aside penalty of withholding pension and recovery.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry has been conducted against the respondent No.2 and the finding against respondent No.2 is that he has misconducted himself, which is a grave misconduct. Based on the said finding, punishment is imposed. After the imposition of punishment, he submits that the Tribunal without reference to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs could not have set aside the order of punishment.
4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the view that the impugned order insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, no ground is made out to interfere.
5. Admittedly, in addition to other infirmities pointed out by the Tribunal, the charge against respondent No.2 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. The respondent No.2 retired form service on 31.05.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation, whereas the charge memo issued on 18.08.2015 is in respect of an incident that has occurred between 2005-2010.
6. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the charge memo dated 18.08.2015 is beyond four years from the date of incident on which the charge memo is issued and the same is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs.
7. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
