- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH 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. 19080 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA) AND: 1. M.R. DWARAKANATH, S/O M. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED 64 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT IN THE O/O THE ABDUL NAZEER SAB STATE Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 INSTITUTION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LALITHAMAHAL ROAD, MYSORE - 11. 2. N.G. KUMBARA, RETD., DISTRICT JUDGE NO.39, 18TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 95. …RESPONDENTS (R1 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 02.08.2016 IN APPLICATION NO.2696/2012 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners/State Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 02.08.2016 in Application No.2696/2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), where under the first respondent's challenge to charge memo dated 02.11.2007 (Annexure-A5) and Government Order dated 04.05.2011 appointing Enquiry Officer are quashed. 2. Heard learned AGA Sri S.R.Khamroz Khan for the petitioners and there is no representation for the first respondent. Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: The first respondent was working as Office Manager in the Department of Panchayath Raj and while he was in service, charge memo dated 04.05.2002 (Annexure-A1) came to be issued and as there was defect in the said charge memo, a fresh charge memo came to be issued on 02.11.2007. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 Thereafter, for the first time, Enquiry Officer, a retired District Judge was appointed under Order dated 02.04.2009. As the said Enquiry Officer died, another Enquiry Officer, a retired District Judge came to be appointed on 04.05.2011. Before commencement of Enquiry Proceedings, the first respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in October, 2012. Few months before his retirement, the first respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.2696/2012 questioning the charge memo. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.P. vs. N.Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154]. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned AGA would submit that the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the charge memo when the allegation against the respondent is serious charge of misappropriation of funds. Learned AGA would further submit that the charge memo dated 02.11.2007 was issued while the respondent was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 in service. As such, the Tribunal could not have allowed the application on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the enquiry. Learned AGA would submit that as the Enquiry Officer appointed at the first instance died, it became necessary to appoint another Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in the said circumstances, learned AGA would pray for allowing the writ petition and seeks permission to proceed further in the enquiry on the charge memo dated 02.11.2007. 5. Having heard the learned AGA and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons: The first charge memo issued to the respondent is dated 04.05.2002 and as the petitioners found defect in the said charge memo, a fresh charge memo came to be issued to the respondent after five years i.e., on 02.11.2007. The Enquiry Officer was appointed two years thereafter on 02.04.2009. The said Enquiry Officer died and subsequently, more than two years thereafter, another Enquiry Officer was appointed on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 04.05.2011. There is a delay of nearly nine years from the date of first charge memo dated 04.05.2002 and appointment of second enquiry officer is dated 04.05.2011. Admittedly, no proceedings has taken place in the enquiry till the first respondent retired from service in the month of October, 2012. Admittedly, there is inordinate delay in commencing the enquiry. Delay in initiation or concluding the enquiry prejudices to defence of the delinquent Government Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred to by the Tribunal in N.RadhaKishan's case (supra) has observed that the delay would vitiate proceedings and every delinquent employee has right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetory loss. 6. In the above circumstances, when the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that there is inordinate delay in concluding enquiry based on the material made before it and exercising its discretion judiciously, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the first respondent retired from the service in the year 2012 and at this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22680-DB WP No. 19080 of 2019 length of time, when he is nearing 75 years of age and at the evening of his life, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK