IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.24760 OF 2018(S-KAT) BETWEEN THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY – II, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI S DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE SHAMANNA, RETD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRE DIVISION, KOLAR, RESIDING AT NO 1648 JEEVANBHIMANAGAR MAIN ROAD, HAL III STAGE BENGALURU - 8 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ M S BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560001 (BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1610/2015, DTD 10.10.2017, IN ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The 1st respondent herein who was working as Executive Engineer in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayath Raj, Government of Karnataka, retired on 30.04.2014. A charge memo was issued against the 1st respondent contemplating Departmental Enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. The application filed by the 1st respondent herein before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) was allowed on the ground that the 1st respondent had retired on 31.03.2014, while the charge memo was issued on 12.02.2015, for a misconduct alleged to have been committed by the 1st respondent, in the year 2008-09. The Tribunal, while considering Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957, Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules and the definition of ‘Government Servant’ as provided in Section 2 of the CCA Rules, held that enquiry could not have been initiated against the 1st respondent beyond 4 years from the year 2008-09 and therefore quashed the impugned order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the State Government and the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Additional Registrar, Enquiry-II, Karnataka Lokayukta.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to make out any ground for interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, we find that while quashing the impugned orders passed by the State Government and the Additional Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, the Tribunal did not restrict the order to the 1st respondent herein. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 13.01.2015 and 12.02.2015 have been passed against 3 persons. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is clarified and modified to be operational only against the 1st respondent herein/applicant before the Tribunal.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DL/-
SD/- JUDGE