Karnataka High Court

Sri L Satish Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB
                                                       WP No. 19805 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
                                           PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                             AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 19805 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI L. SATISH KUMAR,
                   S/O G. LAKSHMAN RAO,
                   AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                   RETIRED AS
                   ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
                   OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                   RESIDING AT NO.1247,
                   SHUBHAPRADA,
                   3RD CROSS, PADUVANA ROAD,
                   T.K.LAYOUT,
                   MYSORE - 570 023.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
                         REPRESENTED BY
                         ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                         BANGALORE - 560 001

                   2.    THE REGISTRAR
                         KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
                         M. S. BUILDING,
                         BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB
                                            WP No. 19805 of 2023




3.   THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF
     ENQUIRIES -4
     KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1.)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/08/2023 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.985/2023 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.985/2023
PREFERRED      BY   THE    PETITIONER      BEFORE    THE   HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) ETC.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
             and
             HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rejecting

Application No.985 of 2023 filed by the petitioner.

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well

as learned counsel appearing for respondent- Karnataka

Lokayukta.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

petitioner that the finding of Tribunal that the initiation of

disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner is to be

deemed to be as on the date of order of suspension issued

against him on the ground that he was arrested in criminal

case, is completely unjustified. It is submitted relying on

Rule 214(6)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules,

(hereinafter referred to as 'KCSR' for the sake of brevity)

that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2022

and therefore, the date of initiation of disciplinary

proceedings by respondent No.3 was only on 10.02.2023,

the date as which the Articles of Charge was issued.

4. It is submitted that since the alleged incident

had taken place on 08.11.2016, the initiation of

proceedings by Articles of Charge dated 10.02.2023 is

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

beyond 4 years and is therefore unsustainable in terms of

Rule 214 of the KCSR. It is contended that the finding of

Tribunal that the earlier suspension of the petitioner in the

year 2016 should be deemed to be the date on which the

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him is

completely unjustified and is against the law laid down by

the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.10939/2010.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of High Court of

Delhi dated 21.10.2010 in WP (C) No.17221-22/2004 as

well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of State of U.P. and Another vs. Shri Krishna Pandey

reported in (1996) 9 SCC 395 and co-equal benches of

this Court in the case of G.R. Govindaraju vs.

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in

W.A.No.156/2020 dated 12.01.2021 and in the case

of State of Karnataka vs. V.H. Agarkhed in RFA

No.200041/2016 dated 30.05.2017 reported in 2017

SCC online KAR 4442.

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that a reading of Rule 214(6)(a) of KCSR would

make it clear that the deemed date of initiation of

disciplinary proceedings is the date of suspension of the

Government Servant concerned. It is submitted that

pursuant to the trap laid on 08.11.2016, the petitioner

had been suspended from service with effect from the said

date by order dated 21.12.2016 and had been reinstated

thereafter. It is submitted that he had challenged the

charge sheet of the criminal case initiated against him in

WP.No.15314/2022 and the same was allowed on

07.12.2022. Thereafter, he retired from service on

31.12.2022. It is therefore contended that the limitation

period of 4 years would not apply in the instant case since

the suspension was with effect from 08.11.2016.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced on

either side, we notice that Rule 214 of the KCSR

specifically provides that departmental proceedings under

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

the Rule shall not be in respect of any event which took

place more than 4 years before such institution.

7. Rule 214(6) (a) and (b) of KCSR reads as

follows:

"(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date:

and

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court."

8. A Co-equal Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.10939/2010 considering the very same provision

has held as follows:

"6. From the above, it is clear that the first part of the Rule 214(6)(a) cannot be

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

taken advantage by the petitioners against the respondent as the statement of charges was issued to the respondent after four years from the date of event.

However, undisputedly, the respondent was placed under suspension in the month of February, 1997. It is relevant to note that the order of suspension was not continued till the date of his retirement. On the other hand, the order of suspension was revoked in the year 1998. Pursuant to such order of revocation, the respondent continued to work as Inspector and later, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He retired from service on 30.04.2004 as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Under these circumstances, the respondent's counsel is justified in contending that the second portion of Rule 214(6)(a) also cannot be made use of against the respondent by the petitioners.

7. No part of the rule can be read in isolation. Since, in the matter on hand, we are dealing with the retired government officer, the question is as to whether any departmental proceeding against him had at all been instituted or can be deemed to have been instituted against him while he was in service. As aforementioned, since no charge memo issued to the respondent while he was in service, the first part of sub-rule 6(a) of Rule 214 is not attracted to this case. The second portion of Rule 214 has to be read with the first portion of Rule 214(6)(a). The suspension contemplated under latter part of Rule 214(6)(a) is an order of suspension continuously in currency although and even as on the date of the retirement of the official. In

NC: 2024:KHC:35956-DB

other words, such a continued suspension is the one envisaged in the latter part of the Rule 214(6)(a) and it is only such an unbroken suspension order that should be treated as amounting to the institution of a departmental enquiry while in service. Since, in the matter on hand, the order of suspension is revoked seven years earlier to the service of charge memo to the respondent (i.e., the order of suspension was revoked in the year 1998 itself), the Tribunal is justified in setting aside enquiry proceedings. Hence, no interference is called for. The petition fails and the same stands dismissed.

9. The other decisions relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner would also support the

contentions raised by the petitioner. Having given our

anxious consideration to the provisions of the Rules as also

the judgments relied on, we are of the opinion that the

judgment of the Co-equal Bench of this Court in

WP.No.10939/2010 squarely covers the question raised. In

view of the fact that the petitioner's suspension with effect

from 08.11.2016 stood revoked and he was reinstated in

service and permitted to continue in the service till he

retired on 31.12.2022 and in view of the fact that the

charge sheet against him in the criminal case stood