- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.10958 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SHRI JAYAPRAKASH G A AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE G. AJJAPPA (RTD) ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/AT SRI GOWRI 2ND MAIN, SAHYADRI NAGARA, SOMINAKOPPA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA -577 204 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.5314/2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR; b) TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2024 in Application No.5314/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein, the petitioner’s challenge to Articles of Charge dated 30.07.2022 and entrustment of enquiry order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure - A4) is rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 2. Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. It is submitted that prior to his retirement, he was kept under suspension on certain allegations on 28.10.2016 and same was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service on 12.06.2017. It is also submitted that in respect of the incident on which the petitioner was kept under suspension, FIR was also filed on 01.10.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently under Annexure - A4 Government order dated 14.07.2022 enquiry against the petitioner was entrusted to the respondent No.2 Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and in pursuance to the said entrustment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 order, Article of Charge dated 30.07.2022 was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Articles of Charge dated 30.07.2022 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of the same and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court placed on record before the Tribunal and proceeded to dismiss the application only on the ground that the petitioner was kept under suspension on 28.10.2016 which shall be the date for initiation of enquiry. Learned counsel would submit that if the petitioner were to continue under suspension as on the date of retirement, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs would not be applicable. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 that since the petitioner was kept under suspension on 28.10.2016, the said date shall be the date of initiation of enquiry under Rule 214(6) of KCSRs. 6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would referring to the sub-rule (6) of Rule 214 of KCSRs would submit that if Government servant was placed under suspension from an earlier date, the said date shall be taken as the date for initiation of enquiry. Thus, they would submit that Articles of Charge issued on 30.07.2022 is within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 214 of the KCSR. Further, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would refer to the order of limitation of suspension and would submit that the revocation of suspension is subject to initiation of enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner would not assist the petitioner. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal under impugned order proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the application is premature and petitioner can raise all his contention before the Enquiry Officer. But, the question is as to whether the charge against the petitioner could be proceeded in view of Rule 214(2)(b) and 214(6) of KCSRs. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.NO.10939/2010 DATED 29.10.2013 (STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. A. SHIVANNA), in an identical fact situation wherein also the petitioner was kept under suspension which was revoked prior to his retirement and subsequent to his retirement, charge memo was issued. In the said circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench at paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 has held as follows: “5. After revocation of suspension in the year 1998, the respondent continued to work - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 and he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police also. Ultimately, the respondent retired from service with effect from 30.04.2004. Till the date of retirement, the articles of charges were not issued against the respondent. However, charges were issued to the respondent on 08.02.2005. Thus, it is prima facie clear that the departmental proceedings are deemed to have been instituted from the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the respondent i.e. from 08.02.2005. In this regard, it is relevant to note the provisions of Rule 214(6)(a) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which reads as thus: “214 (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 suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 6. From the above, it is clear that the first part of the Rule 214(6)(a) cannot be taken advantage by the petitioners against the respondent as the statement of charges was issued to the respondent after four years from the date of event. However, undisputedly, the respondent was placed under suspension in the month of February, 1997. It is relevant to note that the order of suspension was not continued till the date of his retirement. On the other hand, the order of suspension was revoked in the year 1998. Pursuant to such order of revocation, the respondent continued to work as Inspector and later, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He retired from service on 30.04.2004 as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Under these circumstances, the respondent’s counsel is justified in contending that the second portion of Rule 214(6)(a) also cannot be made use of against the respondent by the petitioners. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 7. No part of the rule can be read in isolation. Since, in the matter on hand, we are dealing with the retired government officer, the question is as to whether any departmental proceeding against him had at all been instituted or can be deemed to have been instituted against him while he was in service. As aforementioned, since no charge memo issued to the respondent while he was in service, the first part of sub-rule 6(a) of Rule 214 is not attracted to this case. The second portion of Rule 214 has to be read with the first portion of Rule 214(6)(a). The suspension contemplated under latter part of Rule 214(6)(a) is an order of suspension continuously in currency althrough and even as on the date of the retirement of the official. In other words, such a continued suspension is the one envisaged in the latter part of Rule 214(6)(a) and it is only such an unbroken suspension order that should be treated as amounting to the institution of a departmental enquiry while in service. Since, in the matter on hand, the order of suspension is revoked seven years earlier to the service of charge memo to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 the respondent (i.e., the order of suspension was revoked in the year 1998 itself), the Tribunal is justified in setting aside enquiry proceedings. Hence, no interference is called for. The petition fails and the same stands dismissed.” 8. The above principles laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench would aptly apply to the facts of the present case also. IN the case on hand also, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 28.10.2016 which was revoked on 12.06.2017 and subsequently, petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. Whereas, the articles of charge was issue don 30.07.2022 in respect of an event alleged to have been occurred on 01.10.2016, which is clearly hit by Rule 214(b)(ii) and 214(6) of KCSRs. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked much prior to his retirement and the charge memo issued subsequent to retirement was beyond four years from the date of incident. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27008-DB WP No. 10958 of 2025 9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds with the following: ORDER a) Impugned order dated 20.08.2024 in Application No.5314/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside. b) Consequently, impugned order bearing No.¯ÉÆÃE 143 ¸ÉÃE« 2022, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure-A4) and impugned articles of charge dated 30.07.2022 bearing No.G¥À¯ÉÆÃPï- 1/rÃE/185/2022/J.Dgï.E-9 (Annexure-A5) are quashed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/-(Para No.1 to 6) NC (Para No.7 to 9 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18