Departmental proceedings cannot be initiated for events that occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of articles of charge, as per Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 4293/2017 DATED 07.06.2019 (ANNEXURE-B).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court questioning the order dated 07.06.2019 passed in Application No.4293/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The petitioners initiated an enquiry pursuant to the order of entrustment made by the State Government under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’). An Enquiry Officer was appointed and articles of charge were issued. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Tribunal questioning the order of entrustment and the articles of charge. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge on two grounds. Firstly, by applying Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, ‘KCSR’); and secondly, on the ground that no enquiry can be entrusted to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 after the retirement of the government employee.

4. Sri Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the enquiry was initiated within four years from the date of retirement and, therefore, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR is not applicable. It is further contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the State Government cannot entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 after the retirement of the government employee is unsustainable.

5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Respondent No.1 retired on 30.04.2014. The articles of charge pertaining to the mischief period of 2011–12 were issued on 22.03.2017. The articles of charge issued after retirement relate to a period beyond four years. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR imposes a restriction on the issuance of articles of charge or initiation of departmental proceedings in respect of an event which has taken place more than four years prior to such institution. In the present case, the departmental proceedings were instituted on 22.03.2017 with the issuance of articles of charge. Undisputedly, the articles of charge relate to a period beyond four years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge by applying Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR. The contention raised by the petitioners in this regard is accordingly rejected.

7. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners regarding the finding of the Tribunal that no entrustment of enquiry can be made under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 after the retirement of the government employee is concerned, we have not examined the said issue in view of our conclusion on the applicability of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of