- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRES (2) M. S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI B D NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RETIRED) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, R/AT E-5, “ASHWINI” 3RD C CROS, NARAYAN LAYOUT, WIDIA POORNAPRAJNA SCHOOL, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 BAGALAKUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE AN ORDER/DIRECTION CALLING FOR RECORDS FORM THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 09/03/2020 IN APPLICATION NO.1341/2017; II) ISSUE AN ORDER/DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Though the matter is listed for orders with regard to office objections, the matter is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner/Karnataka Lokayukta and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondent- State. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 3. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti would submit that the petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 09.03.2020 in Application No.1341/2017, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereunder the respondent No.2’s application questioning the articles of charge as well as entrustment order are quashed. 4. Learned counsel would submit that though the respondent No.2 retired on 30.04.2013 and charge memo issued on 16.07.2015 relating to acceptance of illegal gratification between the period from 29.10.2009 to 16.01.2010, show cause notice was issued on 12.10.2011, to which the respondent No.2 replied on 02.11.2011, the articles of charge is within time. It is his submission that issuance of show cause notice shall be taken as articles of charge and if that show cause notice dated 12.10.2011 is taken as articles of charge, then articles of charge would be within the limitation prescribed under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Further, learned counsel would submit that it is a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 continuous cause of action and respondent No.2 has caused loss to the State Ex-checker. As such, the articles of charge issued on 16.07.2015 shall have to be treated as within the time prescribed under Rule 214 of KCSRs. 5. Having heard the learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, for the following reasons: 6. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the KCSRs reads as follows: “214 (2) (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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 (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.” 7. No enquiry against a retired Government servant shall be instituted for an incident which has taken place more than four years before such institution. In terms of Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 214 of KCSRS, 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. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent No.2 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013 and admittedly articles of charge dated 16.07.2015 was issued subsequent to retirement, for an incident which had taken place between 29.10.2009 to 16.01.2010. The incident on which the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 enquiry is instituted by issuance of articles of charge dated 16.07.2015 is for an incident of more than four years from the date of incident to the date of institution. Therefore, the articles of charge issued on 16.07.2015 is contrary to Rule 214 of KCSRs. 9. Nextly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the articles of charge is issued on the basis of continuous cause of action and the Tribunal could not have interfered with the articles of charge. The said contention is untenable in the nature of alleged charge against the respondent No.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. TARSEM SINGH1 has explained the principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs in service law disputes. Relevant paragraph 4 reads as follows: “4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A “continuing wrong” refers to a single wrongful act which 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 causes a continuing injury. “Recurring/successive wrongs” are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [AIR 1959 SC 798] explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963): (AIR p. 807, para 31) “31. … It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.”” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19560-DB WP No. 2408 of 2024 In terms of the above decision, a ‘continuing wrong’ refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. 10. In the instant case, the charge memo itself indicates that the allegation relates to a specific period from 29.10.2009 to 16.01.2010 and during which period the respondent No.2 is said to have obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from one Karadapudi Mahesh. The alleged charge is not in the nature of continuing wrong, it is one time act. Thus, we are not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti. 11. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms