Sri N R Srikante Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10858 Kant

                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

        W.P. NO.10696 OF 2022 (S - RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. N R SRIKANTE GOWDA
S/O LATE N.R.RANGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RETIRE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, BANGALORE,
R/AT NO.1610, 35 CROSS,
BHANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C M NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY ITS
   UNDER SECRETARY,
   URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP),
   VIKASA SOUDHA,
   BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
   REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
   M.S.BUILDING,
   BENGALURU-560001.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                               2

MS. NAGASHREE M C, AGA FOR R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226    AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO     SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.01.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the

departmental enquiry instituted against him and has

specifically challenged the order at Annexure-A

whereby, there is an order of recovery of 10% of his

pension in terms of the Rule 214 (1)(a) of the

Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958.

2. It is contended that the proceedings are one

without jurisdiction insofar as the alleged act in respect

of which the proceedings have been initiated are prior to

13.09.2009.

3. It is submitted that the articles of charge

were framed and issued on 09.02.2015. It is submitted

that in terms of the Rule 214 2(b)(ii), the departmental

proceedings are to be initiated within a period of four

years from the occurrence of the event.

4. It is submitted that relevant date of

institution of enquiry for the purpose of the Rule 214

2(b)(ii) would be in terms of the Rule 214 (6) i.e., date

on which the statement of charges issued to the

Government servant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

on the judgment in STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER vs.

SRI.KRISHNA PANDEY reported in AIR 1996 SC

1656 and submits the Rule in question before the Apex

Court is in pari materia with present Rule 214 2(b)(ii)

and the Apex Court at paragraph 6 has also set aside

the order only on the point of the time within which the

proceedings have to be instituted and accordingly, the

said judgment is also to be taken note of.

6. The petitioner has attained superannuation

on 30.09.2013. The articles of charge have been

framed, admittedly on 09.02.2015 as per Annexure-G.

The event as regards which the misconduct relates is an

event earlier to 13.11.2009 as is evident as statement

of imputation of misconduct. Accordingly, solely on this

ground that enquiry as per Rule 214 (6) has been

initiated on 09.02.2015 and act of misconduct is prior to

13.11.2009, same being impermissible and contrary to

the Rule 214 2(b)(ii), the enquiry proceedings are set

aside and all consequential orders including the order at

Annexure-A is set aside. It is also clarified that

proceedings are set aside only as regards to the

petitioner herein.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU