- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 106779 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. R/BY ITS REGISTRAR LOKAYUKTA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.B. PATIL S/O BASAVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SENIOR ASSISTANT, DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, R/O AT YAREKUPPI, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581115. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION 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 25-06-2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2018 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A); AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTINUE WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 THIS WRIT 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 its Registrar is directed against order dated 25.6.2020 in Application No.254/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi1, whereby 1st respondent’s application questioning the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 14.09.2017 passed under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19572 and consequential articles of charge dated 5.12.2017 is allowed by quashing those orders. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Srinivas B Naik for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for the respondent/State and perused the entire writ petition papers. 1 For short ‘Tribunal’ 2 For short ‘CCA Rules’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 3. The Tribunal on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on meticulous scrutiny of the material on record, allowed the application of respondent No.1 on the ground that the articles of charge dated 5.12.2017 is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 19573 and also on the ground that entrustment order passed under Rule 14A of CCA Rules is the result of non-application of mind by the respondent/State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate and on going through the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.1 was working as Senior Assistant Director in the Horticulture Department and retired from service on 30.04.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the 3 For short ‘KCSR’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 19844 on 2.6.2017. On examination of the said report, respondent No.2/government passed order on 4.9.2017 entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of CCA Rules. On entrustment, the petitioner issued articles of charge dated 5.12.2017. On going through the articles of charge, it is seen that the incident on which the articles of charge is issued relates to the year 2010-11. 6. Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR reads as under: “The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment. i) xxxxxxxx ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the. Procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be the made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” (Emphass supplied) 4 For short ‘Act, 1984’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 7. In the instant case, since respondent No.1 retired from service on 30.04.2014 and as the articles of charge was issued on 5.12.2017 in respect of the incident that took place in the year 2010-11, issuance of articles of charge is clearly barred by Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR. In terms of Rule 214 of KCSR, no enquiry against respondent No.1 could be initiated in respect of any event which took place during 2010-11 since it would be more than four years before such institution. 8. Further Rule 214(6) makes it abundantly clear that 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others V/s Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 has made it clear that Departmental proceedings are commenced only when charge sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 9. In the present case, the Tribunal has also allowed the application on the ground that there was no application of mind by respondent No.2/government while passing the entrustment order of enquiry under Rule 14A of CCA Rules. If the finding of the Tribunal that respondent No.2/government has not applied its mind to the report submitted under Section 12(3) of Act, 1984, it is for the State to establish that it had applied its mind. 10. It is seen that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 25.06.2020, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 31.5.2023. There is a delay of nearly three years in preferring the writ petition. Respondent No.1 was aged 64 years as on the date of filing the application before the Tribunal in the year 2018. As on this date, he is more than 70 years of age. There is no averment in the writ petition explaining the delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner/Institution. The delay by the petitioner/Lokayukta in preferring the writ petition should not prejudice the case of respondent No.1 in the evening of his life. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13872-DB WP No. 106779 of 2023 11. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17