Karnataka High Court
K G Basavanagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
W.P.No.436/2023 (S-RES)
C/W
W.P.No.362/2023, W.P.No.406/2023,
W.P.No.429/2023, W.P.No.430/2023 AND
W.P.No.431/2023 (S-RES)
W.P.NO.436/2023
BETWEEN:
B CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE B. NAGAPPA
R/AT 1663/47, CHAYA NILAYA
11TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS
SIDVEERAPAPBADAVANE
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560 001.
2
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 1974)
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022, BEARING REFERENCE NO.2021-22/977 (ANNEXURE C) ISSUED BY THE R2; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022, BEARING REFERENCE NO.2022-23 (ANNEXURE-D), ISSUED BY THE R2 AND INCLUDE THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION. W.P.NO.362/2023 BETWEEN:
V NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE D VEERABHADRAPPA R/AT 2ND CROSS, U.P. EXTENSION 3 NEAR MARUTI GAS AGENCY CHITRADURGA-577501.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022 ANNEXURE- C ISSUED BY THE R2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R2. 4 W.P.NO.406/2023 BETWEEN:
UMESH N PATIL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE NIGANGOWDA C PATIL R/AT NO.1855/15, 3RD MAIN JANAKI VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577 004.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (ALSO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR 5 ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022 (ANNEXURE) ISSUED BY THE R2 AND QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-D) ISSUED BY THE R2. W.P.NO.429/2023 BETWEEN:
LOKANIRANJAN K.H. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE PATEL HANUMAPPA R/AT NO.1471/10, 1ST CROSS SIDVEERAPPA BADAVANE DAVANAGERE-577005.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.6
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022 VIDE ANNX-C ISSUED BY THE R2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-D ISSUED BY R2. W.P.NO.430/2023 BETWEEN:
K.G. BASAVANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA R/AT #102, NGEF LAYOUT NAGARBHAVI BENGALURU-560 072.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.) 7 AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022 (ANNX-C) ISSUED BY R2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 (ANNX-D) ISSUED BY R2.
8W.P.NO.431/2023 BETWEEN:
S M RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA, R/AT 1946/7, 5TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE- 577005.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S HATTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001.
2. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (ALSO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. INQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR 9 ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING STATEMENT OF CHARGE DATED 24.01.2022 (ANNX-C) ISSUED BY R2 AND QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 (ANNX-D) ISSUED BY R2.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CAV ORDER In the above batch of writ petitions, common prayer to quash statement of Charge dated 24.01.2022 and to quash the order dated 31.10.2022 appointing Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioners is sought. As such, all the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.10
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioners are retired Executive Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers of the second respondent-Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (for short "KRIDL"). They retired on the following dates mentioned in the table below and with the date of Article of Charges issued against them:
Writ Petition Date of Date of Article of
Number retirement Charge
436/2023 31.07.2020 24.01.2022
362/2023 30.11.2016 24.01.2022
406/2023 31.07.2020 24.01.2022
429/2023 31.05.2020 24.01.2022
430/2023 31.07.2020 24.01.2022
431/2023 31.12.2020 24.01.2022
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shivabhushan S.Hatti for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa; learned counsel Sri.P.B.Achappa for respondent No.2 and Sri.Devendrappa learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers.11
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 issued against the petitioners is opposed to Karnataka Land Army Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (for short "1996 Rules"). In that, it is submitted that as on the date of petitioners' retirement, there was no rule or provision permitting initiation of enquiry against a retired employee of KRIDL. It is submitted that the provision to take action against the retired employees was inserted into 1996 Rules by way of amendment under Notification dated 26.08.2021 i.e., subsequent to their retirement. As such, the Article of Charges is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel without prejudice to the above contention would submit that charges contained in Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 against all the petitioners is barred by time and the incident on which, the Article of Charges issued is beyond 4 years from the 12 date of initiation of enquiry. On the above two grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray for allowing the writ petition and to quash the Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 in all the writ petitions.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for second respondent refuting the contentions of the petitioners would submit that Rule 39(b) of 1996 Rules provides that in the absence of specific provisions in these rules, the rules provided in the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules are applicable.
Therefore, the second respondent could invoke provisions of KCSRs to initiate proceedings against the retired employees of the KRIDL. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that under Notifications dated 26.08.2021 and 25.06.2021, KCSRs, CCA Rules, Karnataka Government Conduct Rules are adopted, to be more specific. Further, learned counsel would submit that Rule 95-A is inserted prescribing 13 specific limitation of 4 years to institute enquiry against the retired employees from the date of incident. Learned counsel would submit that when residuary power was available under Rule 39, enquiry is instituted. As such, he would submit that there is no merit in the first contention.
7. With regard to second contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the incident on which, the enquiry is instituted against the petitioners relates to the works during the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Since the work relates to the years 2018 also, Article of Charges issued against the petitioners is within the period of 4 years limitation. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only question which falls for consideration is as to 14 whether the petitioners would be entitled for any relief, as prayed in the writ petitions.
9. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the petitioners would not be entitled for any relief at this stage, for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the petitioners are retired Executive Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers of KRIDL having retired on 31.07.2020, 30.11.2016, 31.07.2020, 31.05.2020, 31.07.2020 and 31.12.2014, respectively.
Article of Charges is dated 24.01.2022 in respect of all the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that as on the date of petitioners' retirement, there was no provision to initiate enquiry against the retired employees of KRIDL and subsequently, under Notification dated 26.04.2022, provisions are made for initiation of enquiry against retired employees of KRIDL. 15 To appreciate the above contention, it would be necessary to look into Rule 39 of 1996 Rules, which reads as follows:
"Rule 39 APPLICATION OF OTHER RULES:
a. The Karnataka Land Army Corporation Service Rules and Standing Orders and all other rules for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation in so far as such rules are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of these rules shall not be applicable to persons appointed under these rules.
b. In the absence of specific provisions in these rules, the rules provided in the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules, may be involved by the Board."
11. Clause(b) of the above Rule would state that in the absence of specific provisions in the said Rules, the Rules provided in the Karnataka Government Conduct and Service Rules may be invoked by the Board which means when there is no specific provision in 1996 Rules, action could be taken in terms of Service Rules of the 16 State Government. Therefore, in the light of Rule 39(b) of 1996 Rules, the second respondent could invoke the provisions of KCSRs to initiate enquiry against the retired employees of KRIDL. Rule 214 of KCSRs empowers action against retired employees. Therefore, it cannot be said that as on the date of petitioners' retirement, there was no provision or power for KRIDL for initiating enquiry against its retired employees.
12. The second respondent-KRIDL to be more specific, under Notification dated 26.04.2022 adopted the provisions of KCSRs, KCS (CCA) Rules, Karnataka Government (Conduct and Service) Rules to erase any doubt in the minds of its employees. Rule 39 is residuary rule which could be exercised to adopt any service rules of the State Government. Thus, the petitioners cannot take advantage and contend that there was no provision for initiation of enquiry against the retired employees of KRIDL.
17
13. The petitioners secondly contended that initiation of enquiry by issuing Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 is barred by limitation of 4 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that assuming that Rule 214 of KCSRs is applicable to the petitioners, Article of Charges is barred by 4 years limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Annexure-D dated 31.10.2022 appointing Enquiry Officer to enquire into charges against petitioners that charges relate to 154 works between 2013-14 and 2017-18. Hence, it is an incident on which enquiry initiated is beyond 4 years from the date of initiation of enquiry. The said contention cannot be accepted for the present. There is no specific material to come to the conclusion that the enquiry initiated under Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 is beyond 4 years from the date of incident against the retired petitioners. A careful scrutiny of Article of Charges dated 24.01.2022 18 (Annexure-C), it would not indicate the period during which the incident took place. When Annexure-D dated 31.01.2022 appointing Enquiry Officer is perused, it only states that the enquiry is in respect of 154 works relating to the period 2013-14 to 2017-18. Since 154 works involved in the Article of Charges is up to 2018 which means, the financial year 2017-18 i.e., 31st March 2018, it cannot be said that it is beyond 4 years.
14. It is open for the petitioners to take the contention of limitation and the enquiry is barred by 4 years on the basis of materials that would be placed on record during the course of enquiry. On submission of the enquiry report at the stage of reply to the second show-cause notice, based on the material that would be placed on record by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioners could point out that the enquiry instituted was beyond 4 years from the date of incident. For the present, there is no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the 19 enquiry is barred by limitation or that it is beyond 4 years from the date of initiation of enquiry against a retired employee.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions stand rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms