- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 10773 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. M.R. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE M G RANGARAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EAST), MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU, R/AT NO.25, C-13, SBM COLONY, SRIRAMPURAM 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570023. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE MYSURU CITY CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001. 5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY-10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/R1 SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.7319/2018 ANNEXURE-B. 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 K.V. ARAVIND) The petitioner – Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar, is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Application No.7319/2018. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 2. The second respondent issued an Order of Entrustment dated 08.03.2017 to enquire into the complaint against respondent No.1. The report was submitted on 16.12.2016, based on which the Order of Entrustment was issued. In the meantime, respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. The Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018; however, the same were served on respondent No.1 on 26.07.2018. The Tribunal, while considering the challenge to the Order of Entrustment and the Articles of Charge, held that as on the date the Articles of Charge were served on respondent No.1, he had already retired from service and, in view of Section 14, the enquiry against respondent No.1 by the petitioner was not permissible. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the Order of Entrustment and the Articles of Charge. 3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2018. It is submitted that much prior to the retirement, the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018 and were served on 26.07.2018. It is further submitted that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 since the Articles of Charge were framed much before the retirement of respondent No.1, i.e., on 31.05.2018, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 4. The learned AGA appearing for the respondent–State authorities supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that though it is contended that the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018, they were served only on 26.07.2018, which is much after the date of retirement. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is justified. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. It is undisputed that respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2018. It is also not in dispute that the Articles of Charge were framed on 21.04.2018 and were served on 26.07.2018. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, “the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 1957 Rules”), after the retirement of a Government servant, is not permissible. Before examining the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the interpretation of Rule 14A, it is relevant to take note of the subsequent development. 8. The Articles of Charge dated 21.04.2018 resulted in the submission of an enquiry report recommending imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the penalty of withholding 5% of pension for a period of five years with cumulative effect was recommended. The Government Order dated 01.04.2023 is placed before the Court. By the said order dated 01.04.2023, the Government has exonerated respondent No.1. In view of the subsequent development of respondent No.1 having been exonerated, examination of the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the interpretation of Rule 14A of the 1957 Rules would be only academic. 9. The contentions raised by the petitioner insofar as the interpretation of Rule 14A of the 1957 Rules are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The writ petition is not entertained only in view of the subsequent order of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13247-DB WP No. 10773 of 2021 Government dated 01.04.2023 exonerating respondent No.1. It is submitted at the Bar that the said order has attained finality. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15