- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36208-DB WP No. 5471 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 5471 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B. S., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL PARK HOUSE BENGALURU-560001. 3. SRI G R RAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH RETIRED AS SHIRATEDAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.199, BEHIND VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE RAMANATHPURA ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36208-DB WP No. 5471 of 2022 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE AN ORDER/ DIRECTION/ WRIT CALLING FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A; II) ISSUE AN ORDER/ DIRECTION/ WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 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) Petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar is before this Court questioning the order dated 05.10.2020 in Application No.6454/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the entrustment of enquiry order dated 06.06.2016 and articles of charge dated 11.10.2017 insofar as respondent No.3 is concerned are quashed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36208-DB WP No. 5471 of 2022 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S.Prasad for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The third respondent retired from service on 27.05.2015 whereas few days before the retirement of third respondent, on 06.05.2015 enquiry against respondent No.3 was entrusted to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). In pursuance to the said entrustment, articles of charge is said to have been issued on 11.10.2017. The articles of charge would indicate charge against the petitioner that the DGO Nos.1 to 10 by corrupt means have subdivided and effected durasthi of akarbund in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.7, 7/71 of Devarayanapattana Village, Hassan Taluk and Sy.No.31 (New No.31/13), 19, 189/2 to 189/22 of Mandiganahalli Village and thereby 71 subdivision are made in one survey number and without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36208-DB WP No. 5471 of 2022 11E sketch, caused loss to the Government which amounted to misconduct. 4. On a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.B.S.Prasad, submits that the enquiry is in respect of an incident that had taken place during the year 2012-13. 5. The Tribunal under impugned order has come to the conclusion that the enquiry could not have been entrusted to the Lokayukta after retirement of the petitioner, as the CCA Rules would have no application to a retired Government servant. We do not agree with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal. However, we notice that the charge against the respondent No.3 is barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 27.06.2015 and articles of charge are dated 11.10.2017 in respect of an incident which had taken place in the year 2012-13. No - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36208-DB WP No. 5471 of 2022 enquiry against a retired Government servant could be initiated for an incident which had taken place four years prior to the date of institution of such enquiry. 7. In the instant case, institution of enquiry is by issuance of articles of charge dated 11.10.2017 against the petitioner in respect of an incident of the year 2012-13 which is clearly barred by time under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. 8. Thus, we do not find any 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.: 14