- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO. 107113 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR LOKAYUKTA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.J. JITURI S/O. JAMPANASA JITURI AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RETD.) R/O. GULEDAGUDDA, TALUKA. BADAMI, DISTRICT. BAGALKOT 587105. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BAGALKOT, Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.31 10:51:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 DISTRICT. BAGALKOT 587101. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYATH, HUNAGUND TALUKA, DISTRICT. BAGALKOT 587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/10/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.6343 OF 2017 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A), AND CONSEQUENTLY, PASS AN ORDER PERMITTING THE PETITIONER FOR CONTINUATION OF DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 IN ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This writ petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta represented by Registrar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.10.2020 in Application No.6343/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 whereunder, the order passed entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14(A) of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957 (for short ‘CCA Rules’) dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure-A24) and consequential articles of charge dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure-A25) in respect of respondent No.1 is quashed. 2. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Srinivas B Naik for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Respondent was working as Panchayath Development Officer, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. Subsequent to his retirement, respondent No.2 - State by order dated 21.11.2016 entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14(A) of CCA Rules and consequently the petitioner issued articles of charge dated 17.05.2017. A perusal of articles of charge, it is seen that the initiation of inquiry against respondent was for an incident relating to the year - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 2008. The respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid application, questioning the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 21.11.2016 as well as consequential articles of charge dated 17.05.2017. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the parties, under impugned order, quashed the order of entrustment of enquiry as well as articles of charge as the same were contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957. 4. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSR reads as follows: “214(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.” 5. The above would not permit initiation of enquiry against a retired government servant in respect of an event which had taken place 4 years prior to the date of initiation of enquiry. The initiation of enquiry would be the date of issuance of articles of charge. In the above circumstances, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 the articles of charge dated 17.05.2017 in respect of an event which had taken place in the year 2008, is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR’s. The Tribunal is justified in setting aside the entrustment of enquiry as well as articles of charge in so far as respondent No.1 is concerned. 6. It is unfortunate that, the petitioner a State Authority being a model employer ought to have examined the order of the Tribunal in the light of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR’s, as to whether it is a fit case for filing writ petition or not. The petitioner has resorted to file this misconceived writ petition without examining as to whether it is a fit case for filing a writ petition and appears to have filed the writ petition in a routine manner. Though it is a fit case for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs, we restrain from imposing costs since learned counsel for the petitioner assured that the petitioner institution would be more responsible henceforth. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14223-DB WP No. 107113 of 2023 7. In the above circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SH CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16