- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 4712 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL BHAVAN, HARISHCHANDRA MATUR LANE, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE, No.1, S. V. ROAD, HALASURU, BENGALURU 5600098. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y. HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATZILLE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: CAO DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AT GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM; BSNL, OPP FORT, SB TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURGI 585101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDAN MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2024 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00595/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 Y. Hariprasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Chandan Mallapur, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in O.A. No. 170/00595/2023 dated 04.10.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. The respondent was appointed as TOA(G) on 20.12.1989 and promoted to JAO on 27.05.2000. He was further promoted to AO on 01.08.2005. The Central Bureau of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 Investigation registered a criminal case against the respondent on 23.10.2007. The respondent was acquitted by the Special Court on 25.10.2018. Thereafter, two time-bound promotions were granted on 31.01.2020 and 06.05.2020. He was further promoted as regular CAO on 07.07.2021, with effect from 30.10.2014. The petitioner-department initiated an enquiry against the respondent on 29.09.2023. The respondent challenged the initiation of the enquiry relating to an incident of 2002-03, after a lapse of twenty years. The Tribunal entertained the application and set aside the charge sheet dated 29.09.2023 on the ground that it was issued after twenty years. 4. Sri Y. Hariprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the CBI registered a case against the respondent in 2007, and the respondent was acquitted on 25.10.2018. The CBI has filed an appeal before this Court against the order of acquittal. It is at this stage that the pendency of the criminal proceedings came to the notice of the petitioners. Consequently, the charge sheet was issued on 29.09.2023. It is submitted that the Tribunal, without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 considering this aspect, committed an error in setting aside the charge sheet on the ground of delay. 5. Per contra, Sri Chandan Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that a criminal case was registered against the respondent on 23.10.2007, which resulted in acquittal by judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Special Judge for Lokayukta and CBI cases. Learned counsel further submits that the charge sheet in the criminal case was filed in 2010 after the sanction of the competent authority of the petitioner-department. It is submitted that the petitioners were always aware of the criminal case against the respondent. The delay of more than twenty years in issuing the charge sheet remains unexplained, and any further enquiry is impermissible. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the dates referred to above are not in dispute. The incident relates to 2002-03, and a criminal complaint was registered against the respondent and 14 other officials of the petitioner-department on 23.10.2007. All 15 officials were acquitted by the Special Judge for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 Lokayukta and CBI on 25.10.2018. It is also not in dispute that the charge sheet in the criminal case was filed in 2010, for which sanction was granted by the competent authority of the petitioners. Further, we notice from the record that, as per Annexure-R6 dated 26.12.2007, the petitioner-department had communicated to their vigilance cell regarding the sanction against the officials involved in the criminal case registered by the CBI. This communication undermines the contention of the petitioners that they were unaware of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the respondent. 7. The contention of the petitioners that the enquiry proceedings were not initiated due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings is untenable. There is no bar to the initiation of enquiry proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings instituted by the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision restricting or prohibiting the initiation of an enquiry independent of the criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge for Lokayukta and CBI. In the absence of any justifiable explanation, the Tribunal, having taken note of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39088-DB WP No. 4712 of 2025 sequence of events, was justified in setting aside the charge sheet dated 29.09.2023, which was issued after a lapse of 20 years. We find reasoned justification in the order of the Tribunal. No other ground has been made out to warrant a different view. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19