Disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant for an incident occurring more than four years prior to the initiation of the charge memo are barred by Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, and subsequent investigative events do not extend the period of limitation.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 BENGALURU PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2018, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

and

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Petitioner, retired In-charge Director of Prosecution is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 07.01.2020 in Application No.7983/2018, whereunder, the petitioner’s prayer to quash order entrusting enquiry dated 05.09.2018; order nominating enquiry officer dated 22.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018 (Annexure-H), is rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as in-charge Director of Prosecution on 30.06.2014. Subsequent to his retirement, under Government Order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure-E), enquiry against the petitioner was entrusted to the second and third respondent – Lokayukta under Rule 14A of The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. In pursuance of the said entrustment, the enquiry officer nominated by second respondent issued Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018. Questioning the order of Entrustment dated 05.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018, the petitioner was before the Tribunal, mainly contending that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is hit by Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules , (KCSRs). The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the petitioner's application accepting the contention of second respondent that it is a continuing cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal as well as questioning the Articles of Charge, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri. K B Monesh Kumar for petitioner, learned AGA Sri. K R Rajendra for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government failed to appreciate that the enquiry initiated by issuing Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018 is contrary to Rule 214 of KCSRs. He submits that the incident on which the Articles of Charge was issued to the petitioner relates to the conducting of examination to the recruitment, selection and appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors held during 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014 whereas, Articles of Charge has been issued on 27.10.2018 in respect of an event which had taken place between 31.08.2013 to 01.09.2013 four years prior to the initiation issuance of charge memo. Thus, he would submit that no enquiry could be instituted against the petitioner in terms of Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018, that too for an event which had taken place 4 years prior to the date of issuance of Articles of Charge.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate in proper perspective, the contention of the respondents that the cause of action is a continuous cause of action. It is submitted that the incident is said to have taken place prior to the petitioner's retirement and any incident which is subsequent to