Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22777
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.G.PANDIT, T.M.NADAF, JJ
SHRI JAYAPRAKASH G A – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.10958 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
For the Appellant: SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI. SHIVA REDDY, SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY
Departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be initiated if charges are not issued prior to retirement, violating procedural mandates.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 - Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) - Articles of Charge issued after revocation of suspension - The petitioner contended that charges against him could not be initiated post-retirement due to Rule 214. Court found that suspension was revoked before retirement, and initiation of charges was beyond the stipulated period. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Synopsis of departmental proceedings - The court emphasized that failure to timely issue charges rendered the proceedings void. The precedent case further reinforced a definitive timeline for proceedings against retired officials, establishing grounds for appeal. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application concerning Articles of Charge issued following a period of suspension. The petitioner retired in 2021, with charges being issued in 2022, after a crucial timeline concerning suspension revocation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's dismissal was based on a strict interpretation of procedural timelines established under KCSRs, highlighting that charges issued after revocation do not hold.
Issues: The main issue is whether the initiation of departmental proceedings post-retirement, upon revocation of suspension, complies with the procedural mandates of KCSRs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Articles of Charge issued after the revocation of suspension were invalid due to procedural non-compliance with Rule 214 concerning timely charges against a government servant.
Result: Writ petition succeeds and the Tribunal's order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to articles of charge after suspension revocation. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural compliance with kcsrs. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on timely initiation of charges. (Para 6) |
| 4. ratios concerning the validity of charges issued post-retirement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final ruling and set aside of previous tribunal order. (Para 9) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
20.08.2024 in Application No.5314/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein, the petitioner’s challenge to Articles of Charge dated 30.07.2022 and entrustment of enquiry order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure - A4) is rejected.
2. Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. It is submitted that prior to his retirement, he was kept under suspension on certain allegations on 28.10.2016 and same was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service on 12.06.2017. It is also submitted that in respect of the incident on which the petitioner was kept under suspension, FIR was also filed on 01.10.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently under Annexure - A4 Government order dated 14.07.2022 enquiry against the petitioner was entrusted to the respondent No.2 Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and in pursuance to the said entrustment order, Article of Charge dated 30.07.2022 was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Articles of Charge dated 30.07.2022 is hit by Rule
214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of the same and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court placed on record before the Tribunal and proceeded to dismiss the application only on the ground that the petitioner was kept under suspension on 28.10.2016 which shall be the date for initiation of enquiry. Learned counsel would submit that if the petitioner were to continue under suspension as on the date of retirement, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs would not be applicable. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner was kept under suspension on 28.10.2016, the said date shall be the date of initiation of enquiry under Rule 214(6) of KCSRs.
6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would referring to the sub-rule (6) of Rule 214 of KCSRs would submit that if Government servant was placed under suspension from an earlier date, the said date shall be taken as the date for initiation of enquiry. Thus, they would submit that Articles of Charge issued on 30.07.2022 is within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 214 of the KCSR. Further, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would refer to the order of limitation of suspension and would submit that the revocation of suspension is subject to initiation of enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner would not assist the petitioner. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal under impugned order proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the application is premature and petitioner can raise all his contention before the Enquiry Officer. But, the question is as to whether the charg
