[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.15624/2020 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR HIREMATH
S/O GURULINGAIAH HIREMATH
AGED 66 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.323,
B2 BLOCK, MALLAPRABHA
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560034.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT.
ROOM NO.222, 2ND FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF
ENQUIRIES - 12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1
SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV. FOR C/R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 BENGALURU
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22.09.2018, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
LOKAYUKTA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.02.2026 COMING ON THIS
DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
3
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioner, retired In-charge Director of
Prosecution is before this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness
and legality of the order dated 07.01.2020 in
Application No.7983/2018, whereunder, the
petitioner's prayer to quash order entrusting enquiry
dated 05.09.2018; order nominating enquiry officer
dated 22.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018 (Annexure-H), is rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation as in-charge Director of
Prosecution on 30.06.2014. Subsequent to his
retirement, under Government Order dated
05.09.2018 (Annexure-E), enquiry against the
4
petitioner was entrusted to the second and third
respondent - Lokayukta under Rule 14A of The
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1957. In pursuance of the said
entrustment, the enquiry officer nominated by second
respondent issued Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018. Questioning the order of Entrustment
dated 05.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018, the petitioner was before the Tribunal,
mainly contending that the enquiry initiated against
the petitioner is hit by Rule 214 of Karnataka Civil
Services Rules, (KCSRs). The Tribunal under
impugned order rejected the petitioner's application
accepting the contention of second respondent that it
is a continuing cause of action. Aggrieved by the said
order passed by the Tribunal as well as questioning
the Articles of Charge, the petitioner is before this
Court in this petition.
5
3. Heard learned counsel Sri. K B Monesh
Kumar for petitioner, learned AGA Sri. K R Rajendra
for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti,
learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. Perused
the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Government failed to appreciate that the
enquiry initiated by issuing Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018 is contrary to Rule 214 of KCSRs. He
submits that the incident on which the Articles of
Charge was issued to the petitioner relates to the
conducting of examination to the recruitment,
selection and appointment of Assistant Public
Prosecutors held during 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013.
It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014
whereas, Articles of Charge has been issued on
27.10.2018 in respect of an event which had taken
6
place between 31.08.2013 to 01.09.2013 four years
prior to the initiation issuance of charge memo. Thus,
he would submit that no enquiry could be instituted
against the petitioner in terms of Articles of Charge
dated 27.10.2018, that too for an event which had
taken place 4 years prior to the date of issuance of
Articles of Charge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate in proper perspective, the contention of the
respondents that the cause of action is a continuous
cause of action. It is submitted that the incident is
said to have taken place prior to the petitioner's
retirement and any incident which is subsequent to
the petitioner's retirement, cannot be taken into
consideration for the purpose of initiation of enquiry.
The contention of the second respondent -Lokayukta
that cause of action is a continuous cause of action,
7
cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the
initiation of enquiry is in respect of the conducting of
written examination for recruitment, selection and
appointment of Public Prosecutors. Learned counsel
would submit that Tribunal without assigning any
reason, accepted the contention of the second
respondent that it is a continuous cause of action, and
as such, the order requires to be set aside by allowing
the writ petition.
6. Learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.
Venkatesh S Arabatti for respondents No.2 and 3
would vehemently support the order passed by the
Tribunal submitting that by taking note of the nature
and gravity of the charge, the Tribunal is justified in
dismissing the application challenging the Articles of
Charge. Sri. Venkatesh S Arabatti learned counsel
would specifically contend that the cause of action
against the petitioner is a continuous cause of action
8
since from the date of incident, i.e., conducting
examination for recruitment, selection and
appointment to the post of Assistant Public
Prosecutors, it continued till the issuance of
appointment order, i.e. on 17.06.2014. Further, he
submits that certain materials were seized from the
residence of the petitioner on 30.01.2015. Therefore,
he submits that the cause of action continued till
30.01.2015. As such, the initiation of enquiry by
issuance of charge memo dated 27.10.2018 is within
four years from the date of seizure of certain
important materials from the residence of the
petitioner on 30.01.2015. Further, learned counsel Mr.
Arabatti would submit that the residence of the
petitioner was further searched on 07.01.2016 and
five unused answer booklets were found in his
possession, which were seized on the same day.
Further, he would submit that the second respondent
9
took up suo motu investigation under Section 7 of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short,1984 Act')
on the basis of the material placed by the
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.
Thereafter, observation note dated 05.06.2018 was
forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner replied
on 30.07.2018. Thereafter, the second respondent
submitted report under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act on
21.08.2018 and subsequently, Entrustment Order was
passed by the first respondent-State Government on
05.09.2018. Therefore, he submits that the sequence
of events from the date of conducting the examination
till the orders of appointment are issued and seizure of
blank answer sheets from the petitioner's residence
shall be taken note of while determining the limitation
of 4 years under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Thus, he
would pray for dismissal of the writ portion.
10
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition
papers, the following points would arise for
consideration:
"i) Whether the Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018 as contented by the petitioner is
contrary to Rule 214 of KCSRs?
ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal warrants interference?"
The answer to the above points would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
The petitioner was working as In-charge
Director, Department of Prosecution and Government
Litigation, in Karnataka and retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. It
is not in dispute that during his tenure as Director-in-
charge, a Notification dated 16.05.2012 was issued for
recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors
in the Department of Prosecution and Litigation,
11
Government of Karnataka. The method of selection
was by competitive examination and the said
competitive examination was held on 31.08.2013 and
01.09.2013. Several private complaints were filed
against the petitioner and others alleging malpractice
in the recruitment, selection and appointment of
Assistant Public Prosecutors. The evaluation of answer
scripts took place between 10.09.2014 to 10.10.2014
and subsequently, orders of appointment were issued.
Further, subsequent to petitioner's retirement from
service on 30.06.2014, certain materials were seized
from the residence of the petitioner on 30.01.2015 as
well as 07.01.2016. Based on the subsequent events,
i.e., seizure of certain materials from the petitioners'
residence on 30.01.2015 and 07.01.2016, learned
counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondent contended that it is
a continuous cause of action and the last date of the
seizure i.e. on 01.07.2016 shall be taken note of for
12
determining the 4 years' limitation. Rule 214 of
KCSRs reads as follows:
""214. (1) (a) Withholding or
withdrawing pension for misconduct or
negligence.-
The Government reserve to themselves the
right of either withholding or withdrawing a
pension or part thereof, whether permanently
or for a specified period, if in any departmental
or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence
during the period of his service including the
service under a foreign employer and the
service rendered upon re-employment after
retirement.
(b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension:
The Government reserve to themselves the
right of ordering recovery from a pension, the
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to
the Government or to a foreign employer
under whom the Government servant has
worked on deputation or otherwise along with
interest at eight percent per annum from the
13
date of occurrence of pecuniary loss to
government. If in any departmental or judicial
proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of
grave negligence during the period of his
service, including the service rendered upon
re-employment after retirement: Provided that
the Public Service Commission shall be
consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is
withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension
shall not be reduced below the amount of
minimum pension prescribed under the rules.
(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 :
Provided that where the departmental
proceedings are instituted by an authority
14
other than Government, that authority shall
submit a report recording its findings to the
Government.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not
instituted while the Government Servant was
in service, whether before his retirement or
during his re-employment,-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction
of the Government.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which
took place more than four years before such
institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in
such place as the Government may direct
and in accordance with the procedure
applicable to departmental proceedings in
which an order of dismissal from service
could be made in relation to the Government
servant during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service,
whether before his retirement or during his re-
employment, shall be instituted in respect of a
cause of action which arose or in respect of an
event which took place, more than four years
before such institution.
15
(4) In the case of a Government servant who
has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or otherwise and against whom
any departmental or judicial proceedings are
instituted or where departmental proceedings
are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in Rule 214A shall be
sanctioned.
(5) Where the Government decided not to
withhold or withdraw pension but orders
recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the
recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate
exceeding one third of the pension admissible
on the date of retirement of a Government
servant.
(6) For the purpose of this rule,-
(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
16
(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]."
A reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly
clear that no enquiry against a retired Government
servant could be initiated for an incident which had
taken place 4 years prior to the date of institution.
Further, it also makes it clear that departmental
enquiry Could be initiated for an incident that had
taken place while the Government Servant was in
service. Any misconduct could be only during
Government servant's service. Government would
have no jurisdiction to enquire into any misconduct
subsequent to Government servant's retirement. In
17
terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs good conduct would only
be a precondition for payment of pension.
We have perused the Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018. The Articles of Charge are issued to the
petitioner for the misconduct committed during the
conduct of main examination for the recruitment,
selection and appointment of Assistant Public
Prosecutors held on 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013. The
said incident has taken place prior to the petitioner's
retirement and for the said misconduct, the State
could have initiated enquiry subsequent to petitioner's
retirement within the limitation period allowed under
Rule 214 of KCSRs. Articles of Charge dated
27.10.2018 is beyond the period of 4 years from the
date of initiation i.e. in respect of an event that had
taken place in August and September 2013. The
subsequent events, i.e., seizure of answer booklets on
30.01.2015 and 07.01.2016 from the residence of the
18
petitioner, cannot be an incident on which the State
could initiate departmental proceedings against the
petitioner. Those are the incidents that had taken
place during the course of investigation in criminal
proceedings. On the said incident of seizure, the
petitioner may be liable for criminal proceedings and it
cannot be a cause for initiation of departmental
inquiry, since he is no more a Government servant as
on the date of seizure i.e. on 30.01.2015 and
01.07.2016.
The word used in Rule 214 of KCSRs is
"incident". The incident on which departmental
enquiry is instituted against petitioner by issuance of
Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018 has taken place
on 31.08.2013 and 01.09.2013, which is beyond 4
years from the date of initiation of enquiry by issuance
of Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018. The concept
of continuing cause of action would have no
19
application to the facts of the present case. Even
assuming that it is a continuing cause of action, it
would only have application till his retirement i.e. on
30.06.2014. Any incident till the petitioner's
retirement i.e. on 30.06.2014 could be a subject
matter of departmental enquiry as permitted under
Rule No. 214 of KCSRs. Events subsequent to a
Government servant's retirement normally cannot be
subject matter of departmental proceedings.
The Tribunal under impugned order without
assigning any reason observed that Articles of Charge
goes to show that it is a continuing cause of action
and proceeded to dismissed the application.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we are of
the considered opinion that the enquiry initiated
against the petitioner by issuance of Articles of Charge
dated 27.10.2018 is beyond 4 years on the date of
20
initiation of inquiry in terms of Rule 214 of KCSRs.
Hence, the following:-
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 07.01.2020 in
Application No.7983/2018 passed by the
Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently,
Articles of Charge dated 27.10.2018 and
the Order of Entrustment of enquiry dated
05.09.2018 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.V.ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BSV
CT: bms
