Shri G.R.Govindaraju vs Bangalore Water Supply
2021 Latest Caselaw 674 Kant

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

                          AND

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA


         WRIT APPEAL NO.156 OF 2020 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SHRI G.R.GOVINDARAJU
SON OF LATE.G.K.RAMAIAH
AGE-63 YEARS
RETIRED DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (EE CADRE)
NO.64/A-4, PIPE LINE, MANUVANA
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040.
                                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI:GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE (PH))

AND:

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE
THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY, BWSSB
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 009.
                                           ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI:B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE (VC))
                             2



      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.3221 OF 2020 DATED 10.2.2020, BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION
AS PRAYED FOR, AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER.


      THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

The appellant is assailing order dated 10/02/2020

passed in Writ Petition No.3221 of 2020 by the learned

Single Judge, rejecting the claim for quashing Annexure-G

i.e., Article of Charges-cum-Show Cause Notice dated

07/01/2020 issued by the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

was working as Deputy Chief Engineer in Executive

Engineer cadre and retired from service on 31/07/2017.

Certain misconduct on the part of the appellant in

procuring the materials during the years 2008-2011 was

alleged. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged

with the Lokayukta and a retired District Judge is said to

have conducted enquiry and found the appellant not guilty.

Thereafter, the complaint with Lokayukta came to be

closed during the year 2013.

3. It is contended by the appellant that even

though he retired from service on 31/07/2017, Annexure-G

was issued on 07/01/2020 calling upon the appellant to

show cause as to why the enquiry should not be initiated

for the so called misconduct pertaining to the years 2008-

2011. It is contended that in view of Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of

the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to

as "the KCSR" for the sake of brevity), no such

departmental enquiry could have been initiated after more

than four years. It is stated that the respondent-

establishment had adopted KCSR and therefore, it is bound

by the above provisions and issuance of Annexure-G is in

clear violation of the provisions of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the

Rules. Therefore, the appellant prayed for quashing of the

same in the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal

of the writ petition, this appeal has been preferred.

4. We have heard Sri.K.Govindaraj, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended

that while the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition

reserving liberty to the appellant to file his reply to the

show cause notice, has not taken into consideration Rule

214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. Therefore, he prayed for allowing

the appeal by quashing Annexure-G.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

supporting issuance of Annexure-G contended that the writ

petition itself was a pre-mature one as only the show cause

notice was issued and the appellant is having opportunity

to show cause to the charges leveled against him and

therefore, the writ petition came to be rightly rejected.

Since no grounds are made out to allow the appeal, he

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. On perusal of the material on record in light of

the rival contentions, there is no doubt with regard to the

applicability of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR to the employees

of the respondent. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR reads as

under:

"Rule 214(1)(a) - Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence -

xxx

(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service.

xxx

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.

(i) xxx

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution."

8. A plain reading of the Rule makes it clear that

no disciplinary proceeding shall be initiated in respect of

any event which took place more than four years before.

In this regard, we may also place reliance on the decision

of this Court in B.V.Savanda Setty Vs State of Mysore

[1973 Mysore Law Journal 41 S.N.Item No.87], wherein, it

is categorically held that Rule 214 empowers the initiation

of proceedings, subject to the conditions enumerated in the

proviso to the said Rule. One such condition is that the

proceedings shall not be in respect of any event which took

place more than four years before such institution.

9. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of

this Court in The State of Karnataka Vs Sangappa

B.Derad and another [RFA No.200057 of 2016 dated

29.09.2016], wherein the Bench consisting of B.S.Patil J.,

and B.V.Nagarathna J., held that, as is clear from Rule

214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no judicial

proceedings could be instituted in respect of cause of

action which arose more than four years before such

institution.

10. This Court again in The State of Karnataka

through the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and Others

Vs V.H.Agarkhed and another [ILR 2017 KAR 3473],

wherein, the Bench consisting of B.V.Nagarathna J., and

B.A.Patil J., placing reliance on the decision of Sangappa

B.Derad (supra), re-iterated the position of law that as per

Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, no proceedings could be

initiated in respect of any event which took place more

than four years earlier.

11. In the present case, admittedly, Annexure-G is

dated 07/01/2020 issued to the appellant herein by the

respondent to show cause for the alleged misconduct

committed between 2008-2011, while he was working as

Technical Assistant in the Central Office. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii)

of the Rules relied on by the appellant squarely applies to

the facts of the case and it debars initiation of proceedings

in respect of any event which took place more than four

years before.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments and

also the discussion made above, we find that the writ

petition filed by the appellant herein has to be allowed by

quashing Annexure-G. Therefore, the Article of Charges-

cum-Show Cause Notice bearing No.BWSSB/Mu Aa Aa-

KA/C Gu-16/4044/2019-20 dated 07/01/2020 (Annexure-

G) is quashed. The impugned order of the learned Single

Judge dated 10/02/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3221 of

2020 is set aside.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

In view of the disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid

terms, all pending applications stand disposed.

The parties to bear their respective costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-