[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
A D Jadhav vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
WP No. 203096 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.203096 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. D. JADHAV S/O DHONDIBA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED TECHNICAL ASSISTANT,
MINOR IRRIGATION (NORTHERN RANGE), VIJAYAPURA,
R/O: NEAR SHAM SCHOOL, PLOT NO.636,
KIRTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586 109.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND
KARNATAKA
WATER DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH),
K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
WP No. 203096 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(ACCOUNTS 1 & 2) AUDIT, KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI BENCH IN
APPLICATION NO.21005/2022 AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY
TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PRAYED
FOR ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari by
quashing the impugned order dated
19.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal Kalaburagi
Bench in Application No.21005/2022 at
ANNEXURE-D and consequently to allow the
Application filed by the petitioner before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal as
prayed for, in the interest of justice and
equity;
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
HC-KAR
b) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Patil,
submits that an identical issue arising out of the very
same enquiry has already been considered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated
22.01.2026 in W.P. No.28243/2025 and connected
matters. The Coordinate Bench, upon examining the
validity of the enquiry, has categorically held that the
enquiry was vitiated. More importantly, taking note
of the fact that the delinquent government officer
(DGO) therein had superannuated on 31.01.2019,
the Coordinate Bench further held that any liberty
reserved to the respondents to initiate a fresh
enquiry would be rendered otiose, having regard to
the bar contained in Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1957 (for short, 'CCA Rules'), inasmuch as no
Articles of Charge could be issued in respect of an
incident pertaining to the year 2015-16. It is
submitted that in the present case, the DGO has
superannuated on 31.05.2017, and therefore, the
ratio of the aforesaid judgment squarely applies.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the allegations pertain to
substantial loss caused to the State exchequer, and it
is in that backdrop that disciplinary action came to
be initiated. She further seeks to rely upon an order
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.203247/2024, wherein the matter was remanded
for fresh enquiry. However, upon a specific query
from this Court, she fairly submits that in the said
case, the delinquent officer was still in service at the
relevant point of time.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this
Court finds that the purported distinction sought to
be drawn on the basis of differing orders of
Coordinate Benches is misconceived and does not
advance the case of the respondents.
5. The distinguishing factor is not the divergence of
judicial opinion, but the factual matrix to which Rule
214 of the CCA Rules is attracted. In W.P.
No.28243/2025, the delinquent officer had already
superannuated, thereby attracting the embargo
under Rule 214 in respect of initiation of proceedings
for stale incidents. In contrast, in W.P.
No.203247/2024, the delinquent officer continued in
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
HC-KAR
service, and therefore, no such statutory bar
operated. Consequently, the remand ordered in the
latter case cannot be pressed into service in a case
where the delinquent officer has already
superannuated.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to the
underlying object and scheme of Rule 214 of the CCA
Rules. The said provision embodies a legislative
policy that, upon superannuation, a government
servant ought not to be exposed to belated
disciplinary proceedings in respect of stale or time-
barred allegations, save in circumstances expressly
contemplated by the Rules. The rule is intended to
ensure finality and certainty in service jurisprudence,
and to protect retired employees from being
subjected to protracted proceedings long after
cessation of service, when effective defence may
itself be impaired.
7. Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or
concluding disciplinary proceedings is a relevant
factor which vitiates such proceedings, particularly
where prejudice to the delinquent employee is
manifest. Stale charges ought not to be permitted to
be pursued, as prolonged disciplinary proceedings
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
HC-KAR
cause undue harassment and are contrary to
principles of fairness and justice. Once an employee
has retired, and in the absence of a specific statutory
provision enabling continuation or initiation of
disciplinary proceedings, such proceedings cannot be
sustained.
8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the DGO
had superannuated on 31.05.2017. In view of the
clear bar under Rule 214 of the CCA Rules, and in
light of the binding ratio laid down by the Coordinate
Bench in W.P. No.28243/2025, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the said judgment squarely
governs the present case.
9. As such, We pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) A certiorari is issued, the impugned order
dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi in
Application No.21005/2022 at Annexure-D
is quashed.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2663-DB
HC-KAR
iii) Since the DGO has superannuated in the
year 2017, there would be no requirement
for granting any liberty to initiate a fresh
enquiry.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
Ct:si
