When a government servant is exonerated by the government during the pendency of a legal challenge regarding the validity of a disciplinary enquiry, the legal questions concerning the timing of the service of charges become academic, leading to the disposal of the petition.

Digitally signed by

NANJUNDACHARI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.7319/2018 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)

The petitioner – Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar, is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Application No.7319/2018.

2. The second respondent issued an Order of Entrustment dated 08.03.2017 to enquire into the complaint against respondent No.1. The report was submitted on 16.12.2016, based on which the Order of Entrustment was issued. In the meantime, respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. The Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018; however, the same were served on respondent No.1 on 26.07.2018. The Tribunal, while considering the challenge to the Order of Entrustment and the Articles of Charge, held that as on the date the Articles of Charge were served on respondent No.1, he had already retired from service and, in view of Section 14, the enquiry against respondent No.1 by the petitioner was not permissible. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the Order of Entrustment and the Articles of Charge.

3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2018. It is submitted that much prior to the retirement, the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018 and were served on 26.07.2018. It is further submitted that since the Articles of Charge were framed much before the retirement of respondent No.1, i.e., on 31.05.2018, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable.

4. The learned AGA appearing for the respondent–State authorities supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that though it is contended that the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018, they were served only on 26.07.2018, which is much after the date of retirement. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is justified.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. It is undisputed that respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2018. It is also not in dispute that the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018 and were served on 26.07.2018. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, “the 1957 Rules”), after the retirement of a Government servant, is not permissible. Before examining the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the interpretation of Rule 14 A , it is relevant to take note of the subsequent development.

8. The Articles of Charge dated 21.04.2018 resulted in the submission of an enquiry report recommending imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the penalty of withholding 5% of pension for a period of five years with cumulative effect was recommended. The Government Order dated 01.04.2023 is placed before the Court. By the said order dated 01.04.2023, the Government has exonerated respondent No.1. In view of the subsequent development of respondent No.1 h