- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND 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. 10570 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-8 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI ARAVIND S MANGANI S/O SHANKARAPPA MANGANI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED JOINT COMMISSIONER EXCISE R/AT NO. 10.2.1321 NEAR FOREST OFFICE S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURGI. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1 SRI B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.1872/2016 DATED 21.06.2018 AS PER 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 S.G.PANDIT) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.06.2018 in Application No.1872/2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Abhishek Malipatil for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 3. The respondent No.2 entrusted the enquiry against the respondent No.1 to the petitioners and in pursuance to the said entrustment, respondent No.1 was issued with charge memo on 20.11.2015. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013. Since the charge memo related to a misconduct said to have been committed on 30.06.2011, the first respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.1872/2016 contending that no enquiry against a retired Government employee is permissible for an even which has taken place four years prior to the retirement in terms of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. The Tribunal accepting the said contention under impugned order dated 21.06.2018, quashed the charge memo and the order of entrustment of enquiry. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons: Admittedly, the alleged misconduct is on 30.06.2011; the respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013; the charge memo relating to the said misconduct is dated 20.11.2015. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) and (6) of KCSRs reads as follows: “(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. – (i) ……………. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (6) For the purpose of this rule. - (a) 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, or if the Government servant has been placed under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted. – (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of the plaint is presented in the Court. 5. In terms of the above Rules, no departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant shall be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 214 of KSCRs would indicate that the date of issuance of charge memo as the institution of departmental proceedings. 6. In the instant case, the institution of departmental proceedings against a retired Government servant is clearly hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32801-DB WP No. 10570 of 2021 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is justified in quashing the entrustment order as well as charge memo in the light of the above Rules. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9