- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 15988 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-10, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI R. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O R. L. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RETIRED ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/AT No.1847, 1ST MAIN, K. BLOCK, KUVENPUNAGAR MYSORE-570023. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (SERVICE-A), M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V.A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.1350/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B). THIS WRIT 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. V. A. Manjula, learned counsel for respondent No.1; and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 2. Respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2018 as Assistant Executive Engineer. On 31.05.2014, a complaint was lodged against respondent No.1 in relation to the work of the year 2010-11, during his tenure as Assistant Executive Engineer in Kaveri Niravari Nigama Limited (KNNL). According to the complaint, respondent No.1 failed to take action against the Contractor despite a delay of more than seven years in execution of the work. The petitioner-Institution after investigation submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the 1984 Act’) to the State Government. The State Government, by order dated 19.12.2019, entrusted the matter under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’) to the petitioner-Institution. Petitioner No.1-Institution appointed petitioner No.2 as the Enquiry Officer, and Articles of Charge were framed on 10.06.2020. Respondent No.1 challenged the Articles of Charge and the enquiry on the ground of delay. The Tribunal, taking note of the period during which the misconduct was alleged, the date of retirement, and the initiation of proceedings, held that under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, ‘the KCSRs’), the proceedings were not maintainable as they were beyond the prescribed period of four years. 3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that a serious charge of misappropriation of Government funds has been levelled against respondent No.1, and that the misappropriation is of a continuous nature. Therefore, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs is not attracted. Learned counsel submits that the preliminary enquiry revealed misappropriation of funds, and hence, the entrustment order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 is justified. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, instead of setting aside the enquiry, ought to have dismissed the application, thereby permitting the conclusion of the enquiry. 4. Smt. V. A. Manjula, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the Tribunal, having regard to the period of the alleged misconduct and the date of framing of the Articles of Charge, rightly applied the statutory bar under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs and consequently set aside the Articles of Charge as well as the order of entrustment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 5. Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ papers, it is evident that the complaint against respondent No.1 was lodged on 31.05.2014, alleging misconduct during the year 2010-11. The Lokayukta conducted a spot inspection and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act on 11.09.2018. The Government, thereafter, by order dated 19.12.2019, entrusted the matter under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. 7. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and Articles of Charge were issued on 10.06.2020, nearly ten years after the alleged misconduct. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the proceedings are barred by limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. Under the said Rule, departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted on the date of issuance of Articles of Charge. In the present case, the Articles of Charge were issued on 10.06.2020, well beyond the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33276-DB WP No. 15988 of 2022 prescribed period of four years. Hence, the departmental proceedings are clearly barred by limitation. 8. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. No other demonstrable ground is made out warranting interference of this Court with the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35