Karnataka High Court
Sri Y Nagappa vs Karnataka Urban Water on 2 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.46765/2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.Y.NAGAPPA
S/O YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RETIRED F.D.A.,
R/AT GURUDADAHALLI VILLAGE
ANEGERE POST
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI
KADUR TALUK-577182
CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ., ADV.)
AND:
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER
SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
NO.6, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560029
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY M/S. KESVY & CO., (ABSENT))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-O, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ALSO ARTICLES OF
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED
30.05.2015 OF THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M; AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
The petitioner, a retired First Division Assistant (FDA) of the respondent - Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board [for short Board] is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order bearing No.PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZïDgïr-6/¹Dgï-33(J)/1648/2015-16 dated 03.09.2015 [Annexure-O] whereby Enquiry Officer is appointed to conduct joint enquiry against the petitioner and another; and also Show-cause Notice/Article of Charge bearing No.PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZïDgïr.6/E.«/¹Dgï.33(J)/588/2015-16 dated 30.05.2015 [Annexure-M] on the ground of barred by limitation under Rule 214 (2) (b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 (for short KCSRs).
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent. Even though there is no representation for the respondent, petition could be disposed of looking 3 into the statement of objections filed. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as FDA in the respondent-Board and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007. Subsequent to his retirement in the year 2015, Show- cause Notice/Article of Charge dated 30.05.2015 (Annexure-M) and Annexure-O, order dated 03.09.2015 was passed appointing Enquiry Officer to conduct joint enquiry against the petitioner and another. Learned counsel would submit that the Show-cause notice/Article of Charge as well as the order to conduct joint enquiry is opposed to law and contrary to Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs. He submits that no enquiry could be initiated against a retired Board servant, if not instituted while he was in service, in respect of any event which took place four years before such institution. Learned counsel referring to Article of Charge submits that enquiry initiated by issuance of 4 Charge Memo relates to the period when the petitioner was working as First Division Stores Assistant at No.1 Division, Mysuru between 16.10.1992 to 06.07.2000. Thus, he submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner under Article of Charge is for an incident which took place more than four years before such institution. Thus, he prays for setting aside both the Charge Memo as well as Order appointing Enquiry Officer to conduct joint enquiry against the petitioner and another insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
4. Having heard the learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers including the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent-Board, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for the relief prayed in the writ petition for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent-Board issued Show-cause notice/Article of 5 Charges on 30.05.2015 (Annexure-M) and subsequently, under Order dated 03.09.2015, appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct joint enquiry against the petitioner and another. On going through the Show- cause notice/Charge Memo and the imputation contained therein, it is seen that the Charge Memo against the petitioner is issued in respect of an incident when the petitioner was working as First Division Stores Keeper at Division, No.1, Mysuru between 106.10.1992 to 06.07.2000, Charge No.1, 2 and 3 relating to the same incident. Charge No.1 reads as follows:
"²æà ªÉÊ.£ÁUÀ¥Àà (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), ¥Àæ.zÀ.G.¸À. DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀA.1 «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 16.10.1992 jAzÀ 06.07.2000 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð GUÁæt ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «vÀj¹gÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.3,52,561.00 UÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ GUÁæt ¸ÁªÀiÁVæUÀ¼À PÉÆgÀvÉAiÀÄÄAmÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è 2,17,206.00 2,17,206.00 UÀ¼À ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ G½zÀ 1,35,355.00 UÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F §UÉÎ «¨sÁUÀ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ C£ÉÃPÀ YÁߥÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁVgÀzÀ PÁgÀt F £ÀµÀÖPÉÌ 6 ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
A reading of the above Charge makes it clear that the enquiry is for an incident or event which took place when the petitioner was working at Mysore between 16.10.1992 to 06.07.2000.
5. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) reads as under:
"214 (2) (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment.
(i) .....
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution."
The above Rule would not permit institution of enquiry against a retired person if not instituted while in service in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.
7
6. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 214 makes it clear that the Departmental Proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which statement of Charges issued to the Government Servant or pensioner. In the instant case, enquiry is initiated by issuance of Show- cause Notice/Charge Memo dated 30.05.2015. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2007. The Charge Memo relates to an incident which took place during the year 1992-2000, prior to four years of institution of enquiry by issuing Show-cause Notice/Charge Memo dated 30.05.2015. Therefore, the Show-cause Notice/Charge Memo dated 30.05.2015 and the consequent appointment of Enquiry Officer is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Hence, it is not sustainable. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned Show-cause Notice/Charge Memo bearing No.PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZïDgïr-6/¹Dgï- 8
33(J)/1648/2015-16 dated 03.09.2015 [Annexure-O] as well as Order bearing No.PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZïDgïr.6/E.«/¹Dgï.33(J)/588/2015-16 dated 30.05.2015 [Annexure-M] are quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE NC.