- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11271-DB WP No. 107410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 107410 OF 2024 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL SERVICES (POLICE SERVICES-A) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALORE-01. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF POLICE IN KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSPETE-583201. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11271-DB WP No. 107410 of 2024 RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA) AND: SRI. DEVENDRAPPA DYAMAPPA MALAGI S/O. DYAMAPPA, AGE: 69 YEARS, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RETD.) DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, RESIDING AT: SHRINIDHI BUILDING, LAXMI PARK, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-560030, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.11321/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2023 IN A.NO. 11321/2022, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND DISMISS A.NO.11321/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11271-DB WP No. 107410 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present writ petition has been filed by the respondent - State before the Tribunal regarding the question of correctness of the order passed in A.No.11321/2022 by the Tribunal. The employee had approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the charge memo bearing No.OE 122 PoSiPa 2021 dated -.05.2022 at Annexure - A4. The Tribunal has disposed of the application while recording the finding as at paragraph Nos.8 and 9. The finding at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 reads as follows: “8. Having considered the rival submissions, it is relevant to refer Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, which reads as follows:- “214. (1) (a) ………. (b) ……… (2) (a) …….. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before 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.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11271-DB WP No. 107410 of 2024 9. Admittedly in the above case, the event is of the year 2014 and the applicant retired from service on 2016. The impugned charge memo is issued in 2022, which is after 8 years from the date of incident and 6 years after the applicant retired from service. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs clearly stipulates that department proceedings, if not instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years, before such institution, then the same cannot be maintained. Since there is a clear bar under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, the impugned charge memo issued is in clear violation of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs.” 2. The Tribunal took note of Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs and has recorded a finding that the applicant had retired from service in 2016 while the charge memo issued in 2022 which is 8 years after the date of incident and 6 years after the applicant had retired from service. In light of the mandate that no proceedings could be initiated in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. The conclusion arrived by the Tribunal at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 does not call for any interference. 3. Though AGA has contended that the delay in framing of charges was in light of pendency of criminal proceedings, we would like to clarify that such ground cannot have the effect of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11271-DB WP No. 107410 of 2024 extending the time as mandated under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32