- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15686 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: B.T. RAMESH BABU S/O LATE B. THIPPESWAMY AGED 63 YEARS R/AT NO.3657/58, 'NAMITHA' 9TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MCC B-BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING, DR .B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL) REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GRAMEENABHIVRUDHDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL) GRAMEENABHIVRUDHDHI BHAVANA, Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL) GRAMEENABHIVRUDHDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. C. ANANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/04/2024 VIDE BEARING NO.KRIDL/ADMIN/CR-BBMP/2024-25 (EV- 353)/32 CONSEQUENTLY THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25/03/2024 BEARING NO. KRIDL/ADMIN/CR-BBMP/2023-24 (EV-353/1683 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and set- aside the order dated 18.04.2024 vide bearing No.KRIDL/Admin/CR-BBMP/2024-25 (EV-353)/32 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 consequently the show cause notice dated 25.03.2024 bearing No.KRIDL/Admin/CR-BBMP/2023-24 (EV 353)/1683vide ANNEXURE-A passed by 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. (b) Consequentially, release all the retirement benefits that has accrued to the petitioner along with accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum, since his retirement on 31.05.2021 till his realization (c) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 05.05.1986, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the respondent - Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (for short 'the KRIDL'), pursuant to which, he reported as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub- Division vide transfer order dated 25.02.2015. Subsequently, on 11.02.2019, the petitioner was transferred to the headquarters Bangalore and thereafter, to Yeshwanpur Sub-Division on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 08.11.2019 and to BMRCL, Bangalore on 02.11.2020 where he continued till he attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.05.2021. 4. Subsequently, the respondents amended their cadre and recruitment rules by issuance of a notification dated 25.06.2021 by inserting provisions for initiation of disciplinary action against retired employees for misconduct while in service investigated by the Karnataka Lokayuktha and Anti-Corruption Bureau. 5. In view of the aforesaid notification which amended the Cadre And Recruitment Rules of the respondents which permitted, empowered and authorized them to take action against retired employees also, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 25.03.2024 followed by Articles of charge dated 18.04.2024 pertaining to the incident during the period 2013 to 2019. Aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice and the Articles of charge annexed thereto, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the notification at Annexure - S dated 19.06.2021 in order to point out the said notification having come into force only on 19.06.2021, which permitted / authorized the respondent KRIDL to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner was prospective in nature, application and operation and the same would not operate retrospectively or retroactively so as to enable the respondents to initiate departmental proceedings / enquiry against the petitioner who had attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021 prior to issuance of the said notification dated 19.06.2021. He would also point out that as in the date of superannuation, there were no Rules, Regulations etc., which permitted the respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the aforesaid amendment to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules by the respondent to sustain the impugned enquiry which deserve to be quashed. 7. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. S.K.KOLHAR VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER wherein it is held as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the initiation of the department inquiry and Articles of Charge dated 22.12.2018 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A and endorsement dated 28.02.2019 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure- B. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Task Force Commander in the KRIDL (earlier called as Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd.) and he retired as Superintending Engineer on 30.07.2016. After his retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated and Articles of Charges were issued vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the Articles of Charge issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A dated 22.12.2018 and endorsement dated 28.02.2019 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent- Corporation has framed Karnataka Land Army Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘C & R Rules’). Under the said Rules, there is no provision for initiation of departmental enquiry against a retired employee. Therefore, the issuance of Articles of Charge is without authority of law. In support of his contention, he has also relied on judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the Corporation has amended the C & R Rules on 25.06.2021, incorporating the provision for initiating the departmental enquiry against the retired employee. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired as Superintending Engineer from respondent- Corporation on 30.07.2016. By exercising the power under Rule 91 and 92 of the Rules 1996, the Corporation has initiated the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and issued Articles of Charges dated 22.12.2018 vide Annexure-A. 7. Admittedly, the Articles of Charges has been issued after petitioner retired from the service. It is very clear from the Rules 1996, there is no provision for initiation of the departmental enquiry against a retired employee. Rule 91 and 92 of the Rules is extracted below: CHAPTER-VIII CONDUCT RULES Rule 91 GENERAL: (a) Every employee of the Corporation shall at all times: i) maintain absolute integrity. ii) maintain devotion to duty; and iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation. (b) Every employee holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all the employees under his control and authority. Rule 92 MISCONDUCT: Misconduct shall include: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 (a) Insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or other to any lawful and reasonable order of the superior. (b) Striking work either singly or in combination with other employees in contravention of any existing law; (c) Taking part in or subscribing in aid of or assisting any political movements; (d) engaging in any unauthorised trade or business; (e) slowing down work either singly or in combination with other or others; (f) inciting others to slow down work; (g) Stopping or refusing to do legitimate work while on duty; (h) habitual absenteeism without leave; (i) Habitual late attendance; (j) Loitering while on duty or absence without permission from the place of work; (k) damage to any property of the Corporation; (l) breach of any standing Orders or Rules; (m) habitual negligence or neglect of work; (n) disclosing to any unauthorised person or persons any information in regard to the working of process of the Corporation which comes into the possession of the employees - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 during the course of their work; (o) holding meetings inside the Corporation's premises without previously obtaining the sanction of the Managing Director or any prescribed authority; (p) drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour or any act subversive of discipline or efficiency; (q) distribution or exhibit within the premises of the Corporation or any news paper or bills of posters or pamphlets without the previous sanction of Managing Director or any prescribed authority; (r) collection of any money within the Corporation's premises for purposes not sanctioned by the Corporation; (s) taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification whatsoever; (t) theft, fraud or dishonesty; (u) conduct on the part of the employees, which endangers the life or safety of the other employees in the premises of the Corporation; (v) insolvency or habitual indebtedness. An employee found guilty of misconduct is liable for disciplinary action. 8. A plain reading of Rule 91 and 92 makes it clear that they enumerate general conduct requirements and instances of misconduct applicable to the employees of the Corporation. However, there is no provision in the Rules - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 authorizing initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee’s retirement. 9. The Apex Court in case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) held that in the absence of a provision for initiating the departmental inquiry, initiating the same will be considered to be without jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph 6 and 7 is extracted below: 6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995. there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.” 10. This Court, while granting interim relief on 17.02.2021, had also prima facie observed that the respondent-Corporation’s regulations did not permit initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee and that the action appeared to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 Bhagirathi Jena (supra). The interim order dated 17.02.2021 reads thus: “The petitioner challenges the institution of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge sheet dated 11.12.2018 / 19.01.2019, for an incident that had occurred between October 2014 and December 2014, after the retirement of the petitioner, which came about on 30.07.2016. Prima facie, the proceedings that is now sought to be instituted by the respondents is contrary to law inasmuch as the regulations of the respondents – Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited does not permit to institute disciplinay proceedings against the retired employee, in the light of therebeing no provision to hold an enquiry against the retired employee. Therefore, the action of the respondents will fall foul in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of BHAGIRATHI JENA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, O.S.F.C. AND OTHERS reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, whereby the Apex Court has held that there is no provision to hold an enquiry against an employee who has already retired from service. Therefore, there shall be an stay of operation, implementation and all further proceedings of the impugned Articles of Charges dated 22.12.2018, till the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve requisite sets of writ papers on Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned panel counsel appearing for the respondents. List the matter on 26.02.2021. 11. The amendment to the C & R Rules of the Corporation enabling initiation of proceedings against retired employees was introduced on 25.06.2021, i.e., subsequent to issuance of Articles of Charge dated 22.12.2018. The said amendment operates prospectively and cannot validate an action which was without authority of law on the date it was initiated i.e., prior to the date of the said amendment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 12. In view of the above, the impugned Articles of Charges and endorsement are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned orders i.e., Articles of Charge dated 22.12.2018 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A and endorsement dated 28.02.2019 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed. c) So far as prayer (b) of the writ petition is concerned, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2018 at Annexure-R keeping in view the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.14160/2017 disposed of on 14.06.2018 within eight weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending applications are disposed of." 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - KRIDL and learned AGA would jointly submit that the petitioner is guilty of a misappropriation of Rs.3.5 crores and consequently, the respondents were entitled to proceed against the petitioner by way of the impugned proceedings and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact and a matter of record that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and got retired on 31.05.2021. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the retirement and attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner, the respondents issued the notification at Annexure - S dated 19.06.2021 purporting to amend their Cadre And Recruitment Rules by inserting provisions for proceedings against retired employees. So also, on 25.06.2021, the respondents issued one more notification against retired employees. The said notification at Annexure - S reads as under: "Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited. (Formerly Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited) "Grameenabhtvruddhi Bhavana" 4th & 5th Floor, Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-560 009 No. KRIDL/EST/MF-202/2021-22 Date 19-06-2021 NOTIFICATION Sub: Amendment to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules-Insertion of provision for proceeding against employees in cases of misconduct investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta and Anti Corruption Bureau- reg. Ref: Resolution of the 202nd Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 20-04-2021. PREAMBLE: The Board of Directors in its 104th Meeting held on 20-09-1996 have approved the Cadre & Recruitment Rules 1996, which came into force w.e.f 20-09-1996. Presently: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 1. In case of misconduct investigated into by the Karnataka Lokayukta and Anti Corruption Bureau the investigation reports are sent to the company for disciplinary action, if necessary. 2. After examination of the report and record of investigation a departmental enquiry is conducted by the Company after framing charges against the concerned employee(s). In some cases, of grave misconduct the enquiry is entrusted to the Karnataka Lokayukta / Upalokayukta on the basis of Rule 14A of the KSC (CCA) which is applicable to Government employees. 3. In a recent case disposed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 11.12.2020 in WP No.8374/2019 in the case of Devaraj & Others vs Karnataka Lokayukta the Hon'ble Court has set aside the entrustment of enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta since no specific provision is available under the KLAC C&R Rules, 1996 for entrustment of enquiries to the Karnataka Lokayukta. 4. In the instant case the Company relied on Rule 2 [19] (b) which provides that, interpretations as well as other conditions of service etc., not explicitly expressed in these rules will be the same as found in the KCSR. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court has not accepted the stand of the Company. 5. It is also noted that the investigation reports under the Prevention of Corruption Act are also being referred by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the KRIDL for necessary disciplinary action by the Company. In view of the above, the Management felt necessary to incorporate a specific provision under the KLAC C&R Rules for examination of investigation reports referred by the Karnataka Lokayukta and entrustment of departmental enquiries to the Karnataka Lokayukta, on the lines of Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA). Unlike the Lokayukta, the Anti- Corruption Bureau does not conduct departmental enquiries. Hence, in cases of investigation reports referred by the Anti Corruption Bureau the surne will have to be examined by the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 Company for taking disciplinary action if necessary as being done in other cases of misconduct. In the light of the above, a provision titled as 'Special Procedure in Certain Cases of Misconduct' on the lines of Rule 14 A of the CCA Rules was proposed to be inserted as Rule 96A of the KLAC C&R Rules, 1996, the Board was therefore requested to consider the proposal. The Board after due deliberation, unanimously accorded approval for insertion of Rule 96A to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of the Company to be titled as Special Procedure in Certain Cases of Misconduct. Hence the following order: ORDER In view of the above fact narrated in the above preamble, the following Amendment to KLAC C&R Rules, 1996 as "Special Procedure in Certain Cases of Misconduct" under Bule 96A have heen made as below: 01. Where on investigation into any allegation against an employee of the Company in respect of an allegation of a serious nature, the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta is of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall forward the record of investigation along with his recommendations to the Company, and the Company or other Authority empowered by the Company, after examining such records, may direct an enquiry into the case by the Lokayukta/ Upalokayukta or direct the concerned Disciplinary Authority specified under Rule 2 [12] to take action in accordance with Rule 96. 02. Where the Lokayukta/ Upalokayukta is entrusted to hold an enquiry into a case under Rule 96A (1) the enquiry may be conducted either by the Lokayukta/ Upalokayukta or by an Officer authorised by the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta to conduct the enquiry. 03. The Officer authorised to conduct the enquiry shall conduct the enquiry in accordance with the said rules and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 shall have the power of the disciplinary authority under the said rules. 04. After completion of the enquiry, the records of the case with the findings of the enquiry officer and the recommendations of the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta shall be sent to the Company. 05. On receipt of the records under Sub Rule 96A (4) the Company or other Authority empowered by the Company shall take action in accordance with Rule 96 and shall be competent to impose any of the penalties under Rule 94 of the said rules. 06. In case the Managing Director & Disciplinary Authority for the cadres of Executive Engineer & below is not agreeable with the recommendations of the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta, the same shall be referred to the following Sub-Committee of the Board for examination and recommendations to the Board for a final decision. 01. Principal Secretary, RDPR - Chairman 02. Managing Director, KRIDL - Member 03. Chief Financial Officer, KRIDL - Member 04. Chief Engineer Concerned, KRIDL - Member 05. Chief Administrative Officer, KRIDL - Convenor 07. In cases of misconduct investigated by the Anti Corruption Bureau the investigation reports shall be examined by the Company and disciplinary action as necessary taken as per procedure laid down in Rule 96 of the KLAC C&R Rules, 1996. The above amendments will come with immediate effect. Managing Director KRIDL, Bengaluru. To. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 The Chief Engine er (BBMP/ Central) KRIDL, Bangalore/ Chief Engineer (North), KRIDL, Belagavi. All the Superintending Engineers, KRIDL. All the Executive Engineers, KRIDL. All the Asst. Executive Engineers, KRIDL. * * * Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited. (Formerly Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited) "Grameenabhiruddhi Bhavana" 4th & 5th Floor, Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-560009 No. KRIDL/EST/MF-202/2021-22 Date 25-06-2021 NOTIFICATION Sub: Amendment to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules- Insertion of provision for initiation of Disciplinary action against retired employees for misconduct while in service investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta and Anti Corruption Bureau- reg. Ref: Resolution of the 202nd Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 20-04-2021. PREAMBLE: The Board of Directors in its 104th Meeting held on 20-09-1996 has approved the Cadre & Recruitment Rules 1996, which came into force w.e.f 20-09-1996. Presently: 1. Rules 93 to 103 of Cadre & Recruitment Rules of the Company prescribe the procedure to be followed in the matter of discipline and appeal of employees of the. Company. Rule 2 [19] (b) provides that, interpretations as well as other conditions of service etc., not explicitly expressed in these rules will be the same as found in the KCSR. 2. Based on the above provisions the KLAC (now renamed as KRIDL) conducts departmental enquiries against employees for alleged misconduct and one or more of the penalties prescribed - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 under Rule 94 are being imposed by the concerned Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority whenever required. 3. It has been noted that some investigation reports are received for taking disciplinary action after the employee has retired from service. As per KCSR provision is available for initiating disciplinary proceedings against retired employees for their grave misconduct or negligence during service, provided that such action shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. 4. Provision under KLAC C&R Rule 2 [19] (b) is that, interpretations as well as other conditions of service etc., not explicitly expressed in these rules will be the same as found in the KCSR. However in view of the importance of disciplinary matters concerning misconduct and recovery of losses from retired employees it is felt necessary to insert specific provision under the Rules for clarity in KRIDL cases. In view of the above, the proposal for insertion of a provision "Proceedings against retired employees for their misconduct during service" under the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of the Company for initiation of disciplinary action against retired employees for misconduct while in service and the Board was therefore requested to accord approval to insert the said provision in the existing Cadre & Recruitment Rules of the Company. The Board after due deliberation, unanimously accorded approval for insertion of Rule 95 to the KLAC Cadre & Rules, 1996, as "Proceedings against retired. employees for their misconduct during service of the Company. Hence the following order: ORDER In view of the above fact narrated in the preamble, the following amendment to KLAC C & R Rules 1996 as "Proceedings against retired employees for their misconduct during service" under Rule 95A have been made as below: 01. Where a departmental enquiry has been instituted while the employee was in service, the said enquiry shall be continued and concluded by the authority which commenced the enquiry, in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 02. Where a departmental enquiry is not instituted while the employee was in service, the same may be instituted against a retired employee with the approval of the Appointing Authority and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such initiation. The above amendments shall come with immediate effect. 10. As can be seen from the aforesaid notifications dated 19.06.2021 and 25.06.2021, the same were issued permitting/ authorising the respondents to take action against the petitioner after his retirement and having attained the age of superannuation. A plain reading of the aforesaid notification bringing into force the amendment to the Cadre And Recruitment Rules is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the said amendment was by way of addition / insertion and not by way of substitution and thereby leading to the sole and unmistakable conclusion that the said notifications permitting the respondents to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner who was a retired employee was clearly prospective in nature application and operation and consequently, no reliance could have been placed upon the said notifications which amended the Cadre and Recruitment Rules by the respondents for the purpose of initiating the impugned enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 11. The aforesaid judgment in S.K.Kolhar's case is directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the incident case inasmuch as the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation and having retired on 31.05.2021 and the subsequent notification of amending the cadre and recruitment rules issued on 19.06.2021 and 25.06.2021 would evidently not be applicable to the petitioner and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notice and all further proceedings in pursuance of the same including the articles of charge are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserve to be quashed. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned show cause notice dated 25.03.2024 and Articles of charge dated 18.04.2024 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for retirement benefits - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19679 WP No. 15686 of 2024 and take appropriate decisions/ pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BH : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16