1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION No.2376 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

MOHAN N.GANGOLI

S/O.NARAYANA NAIK

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

RETD DY.CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

NO.103, 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH MERIDIAN ROYAL

10^TH MAIN, HAMPINAGAR, RPC LAYOUT

BENGALURU – 560 040

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS PRINICPAL SECRETAY

DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

AND ENVIRONMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU – 560 001

2

2.

THE REGISTRAR

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1)

*****

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER

DATED

24.12.2020

PASSED

BY

THE

HON’BLE

KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL,

BENGALURU

IN

APPILICATION NO.4093/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioner against whom an enquiry as ordered to be

held by Upalokayukta, is before this Court challenging the

order

dated

24.12.2020

passed

in

Application

No.4093/2020 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

at Bengaluru, whereunder application filed by petitioner for

quashing of enquiry proceedings came to be dismissed.

2. We have heard Sri M.Vinaya Keerthi, learned

counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt.Shilpa S.Gogi,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.1. No notice is issued to respondent No.2

3

as petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the

reasons indicated hereinbelow:

A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Girish

alleging while petitioner was working as a Deputy

Conservator of Forest in the year 2014-15, permission had

been granted for stone quarrying at Sy.No.16, Haridravathi

Village and despite brining it to the notice of the

authorities including the petitioner for cancellation of said

licence and stoppage of quarrying, no action was taken.

The said complaint was filed before the second respondent.

After issuing notice to the petitioner and on conducting

preliminary enquiry, on account of reply having not been

submitted by the petitioner, a report under Section 12(3)

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 came to be forwarded by

2^nd respondent to the competent authority opining

thereunder that disciplinary proceedings has to be initiated

against petitioner and sought for an order being passed

under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 for entrusting

enquiry to be conducted by 2^nd respondent. Accordingly,

4

order came to be passed by the competent authority on

28.07.2020 (Annexure-A2) entrusting enquiry to 2^nd

respondent. Thereafter, articles of Charge came to be

issued to petitioner on 04.09.2020 (Annexure-A3). Being

aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the tribunal

in Application No.4093/2020. Before tribunal, contentions,

which has been urged in this writ petition was urged

namely,

a) there is a delay in initiation of proceedings against

petitioner and as petitioner had retired from service

on 31.07.2018, the proceedings could not initiated

and it is barred by limitation;

b) Land bearing Sy.No.16 which is the subject matter

of alleged permission granted for stone quarrying

would not fall within the forest area and petitioner

had no role whatsoever in issuance of license for

quarrying.

3.

Both these contentions came to be considered

by the Tribunal and after noticing that Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of

5

KCSR Rules enables the competent /disciplinary authority

to conduct departmental proceedings in respect of a

retired employee cannot be in receipt of an