Under Rule 6(1)(c) of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, judicial proceedings are deemed instituted upon the registration of a complaint or filing of a charge sheet; the requirement of judicial cognizance cannot be read into the provision unless expressly specified in the text.

Reserved on : 25.03.2026

Pronounced on : 09.04.2026

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE COMMUNICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER VIDE BEARING No.DPAR 48 SPP 2016 DATED 27.08.2016 AT ANNEXURE A - A13 AT PAGE No.133 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTS IS NOT AN ORDER UNDER THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

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

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

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

Heard Sri.S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The applicant in O.A. No.170/00431/2022, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”), is before this Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while serving as Superintendent of Police, KGF, retired from service on 31.07.2016. The State Government, by order dated 27.08.2016, directed settlement of provisional pension under Rule 6 (2) of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the 1958 Rules”) and ordered withholding of DCRG and commutation of pension. Respondent No.2 accordingly released provisional pension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.

3.1 Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.170/00281/2017 challenging the orders dated 27.08.2016 and 07.10.2016. The Tribunal disposed of the said application on 01.03.2018, reserving liberty to the State Government to initiate proceedings within three months and to approach the Tribunal, if necessary.

3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.08.2018 seeking release of service benefits in terms of the order dated 01.03.2018. The said representation remained unconsidered. Though the petitioner initially preferred a contempt petition before the Tribunal, the same came to be withdrawn. Subsequent representations were also submitted seeking compliance with the order dated 01.03.2018.

3.3 Despite the same, respondent No.1 neither initiated any disciplinary proceedings nor settled the service and pensionary benefits. Consequently, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for release of service and pensionary benefits and for issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 23.08.2018.

3.4 The Tribunal, upon considering the objections raised by the respondent authorities with regard to the pendency of judicial proceedings, rejected the application.

4. Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2016 and that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016. It is contended that, in view of Rule 6 of the 1958 Rules, no proceedings can be instituted after retirement without the sanction of the Central Government. It is further submitted that no proceedings can be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years prior to such institution.

4.1 Learned counsel would contend that, in the present case, though criminal proceedings are stated to be pending in Crime No.22/2018, no charge sheet has been filed within four years and, therefore, such judicial proceedings do not bar settlement of pensionary benefits. It is also urged that unless cognizance is taken on a complaint, the mere existence of a complaint would not constitute a bar. According to the learned counsel, the “complaint” contemplat