- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 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. 15027 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O BASANNA AGE: 66 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, R/AT NO. 1656, SOCHITHA , 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MCECHS LAYOUT, 2ND PHASE, DR. SHIVRAM KARANTH NAGAR, JAKKUR, BENGALURU - 560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 3. THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. SHRI. VASANTH Y. MULASVALAGI, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AND THE ENQUIRY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES MS. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) PARK HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.1501/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS WRIT 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 K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Unsuccessful applicant in Application No.1501/2021 has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer and was posted in the office of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology at Hospet in the year 2009. The Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti Corruption Zone) Hyderabad (for short, ‘CBI’) submitted a report directing action against the petitioner. The enquiry was initiated and articles of charge came to be issued on 29.04.2015. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. The respondent No.1 entrusted enquiry to respondent No.3 on 29.09.2015. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 19.10.2017. As the retirement benefits were not settled due to pending - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 enquiry, the petitioner filed application before the Tribunal seeking to quash articles of charge dated 29.04.2015 and order dated 19.10.2017, appointment of Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal without examining the merits proceeded to reject the application holding that the application is barred by limitation, having filed after nearly five years. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Vijayakumar.V.B., appearing for the petitioner submits that the application before the Tribunal was not filed questioning the merits of the articles of charge and appointment of Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that as the enquiry was not concluded and the enquiry was not shown any progress, on the ground of delay in conclusion of proceedings, prayer was made before the Tribunal to quash the articles of charge and order of appointment of Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal without appreciating the grounds on which the prayers were made, erroneously rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 submission has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO BANK AND OTHERS VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA1. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the articles of charge and order of appointment of Enquiry Officer was challenged before the Tribunal with a delay of nearly five years. The petitioner has not explained the delay in approaching the Tribunal. It is further submitted that giving effect to the directions issued by the Tribunal to conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, by order dated 30.01.2025, the Enquiry officer is appointed and notice is issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the charge is serious and the enquiry has to be concluded. 1 (2018) 14 SCC 92 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 5. Learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty appearing for respondent No.3 supports the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the dates and events are not in dispute. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology at Hospet in the year 2009. In the year 2013, the CBI directed action against the petitioner for which, articles of charge came to be issued on 29.04.2015. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2015. Though the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 19.10.2017, enquiry has not progressed. In view of the pending enquiry, the retirement benefits of the petitioner were not settled. Hence, he was constrained to file the application before the Tribunal. 7. A perusal of the grounds urged before the Tribunal in support of the application would indicate that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 the challenge to articles of charge and appointment of Enquiry Officer was made only on the delay in conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. 8. When the articles of charge were issued and the retirement benefits of the petitioner were not settled, the petitioner has continuous cause of action. The Government under Circular dated 28.06.2001 prescribed time limit for conclusion of the enquiry i.e., within nine months from the date of appointment of Enquiry Officer. The list of events on record not in dispute would indicate that there was no progress in the enquiry initiated. 9. Further, the Tribunal directed conclusion of enquiry within six months from the date of the order. The order of the Tribunal is dated 10.02.2022. It is submitted that to give effect to the order of the Tribunal, the State has appointed Enquiry Officer only on 30.01.2025 much after the expiry of time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of STATE OF A.P. VS. N.RADHAKISHAN2 while examining the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings has held as under: “19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of 2 (1998) 4 SCC 154 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” The delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings would prejudice the interest of the delinquent and also the Disciplinary Authority. The length of time from the institution, thereafter issue of Articles of Charge and appointment of Enquiry Officer, cannot be said to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 reasonable to allow disciplinary proceedings to proceed further. 11. The State has appointed Enquiry Officer only on 30.01.2025 much after the expiry of time limit prescribed by the Tribunal and if entertained at this length of time, it would adversely prejudice the petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. 12. The combined consideration of the date of issuance of articles of charge and the appointment of Enquiry Officer pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, it is difficult to accept that the enquiry proceedings are not delayed. The delayed enquiry proceedings has prejudiced the right of the petitioner. We are inclined to entertain this petition and following order is passed: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 10.02.2022 in Application No.1501/2021 passed by the Karnataka - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33235-DB WP No. 15027 of 2022 State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside. c) While allowing the Application No.1501/2021, we set aside the order dated 29.04.2015 bearing No.UÀ¨sÀÆE/¹§âA¢/C- 3/42/2013-14 (Annexure-A2) and the order dated 19.10.2017 bearing No.¹L 110 JAfJ¸ï 2013, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (Annexure-A5). Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41