IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mxs THE 20TH my OF' SE1?FEMBE§?'fi2€§f1jQ"'vv.'
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR3.S.K.HEHAR.,»--CHI~Efi§'_,JifSTi'CE'.V x
AND
THE HONBLE MRs...nJsi'1§§E MANLIIJLAV
WRIT APPEALV NO.V.E'3'73:J'§G'f)9fS-QRESE"
Be¥:wee11:
State of K3rr1.3.taka.. ' _, _.
Rep by its S§e%f;rc:1_;21i'§,=' _ _ V
Deparune:1'tof_"Hé'a}th V. "
Family Weifare 1', ~ A M
V1kaSa»'S'OU.C1h£;-B, g:;--1§!Qre- 1 '
V V V .. .Appe1la:mt
(By sri mreerapp'a;i%%AGA>%%%%%%%
. - V' V'. . . . . . ..
" --vAge,d':§,'bQu£.. 72 years
Re*'i:i1?E:d Mgr.-iical Officer
A "R/a Né;j_V}.21, 3rd CFGSS
'~?*Ra.j'ag:"'.-;'2}1a"
Hamlmanthanagar
.A Mysore.
Tfic Registrar
Karnataka Lczkayuktha
.M.S.Bui1ding, Bangaiorc:-1
Respondents
(By Sr: V.Y.Ku17nar, adv., for R-1;
Sri B.A.Be1§iappa, Adv, for Rail)
j
2. The question to be determined in the preeess
of adjudication of the present writ appeal is, vzfietfler
the Charge memo issued to respondent’_.-§il\le§’1’V.’ .
justified in terms of rule 214(2}{‘b) Qfthe f{3iVil ll ”
Service Rules, 1958? The aim-es;a:<l £1115 is
extracted hereunder:
“2 14{2){b) ~ The éepartnleiitai..pI*0ceea1ings,9if
not instituteci while the Government servant
was in serViCe,t” _w11et’£_1ei*– fiefore his
retirement or during hi$’re~e1;np’leytnent.
(1) shai1fm): 15:; i:1’set§;1tgd”sav=e with the
sat1etit’>n_«of “the (3-0_\:err11_Iier1t. ‘
(ii) be respeet of any event
which to:1k_.Vpit1ce« than four year before
such :¥.z13t_itL2.tle1f1,. ”
(iii) shall be c:;nd.ticted by such authority
; in eaten’ plate as the Government may
and ‘inuaretzordanee with the procedure
_ applicable to departmental proceedings in
-..wt_;ie3.51’~l.ei11._ order of dismissal from service
eenflziy made in relation to the
“‘lGovernnt:£ent servant during his service.”
n L The solitary contention of the learned
V for respondent Ne.1 on the basis of the
‘afelresaid rule is, that the departmental enquiry iriifiated
” Vagainst respondent No.1 had commenced more than
four years from the event of delinquency alleged agamst
___W*
(F
him, arid as such, the same was not sustainable under
ruie 2}4(2)(b), extracted hereinabove. in faefi,»-{ L1}e
iearned Single Judge, while disposing of _
N0,46I55/2003 by the ixzlpggned ‘4 ”
5.13.2008, had arrived at mecog,¢;1;s:og,, -ma¢eem;,,’
charge memo having beeniseped {:0 x1*esp#:):.f1c§.e1<:-l;,,,1\23o.1 -. "
beyond the period of four %:r;,é, of 'the
alleged delinquency, ,eu$tai:1ab1e in
law. In doing based his
conclusion. V' Gevemment
sanetieeedv :' ' ' pertmental enquiry,
after 1:53 xetjreifivezejjefLeeecsndent No.1, on 20.10.1993.
lee-wceheluézion drawn by the learned Single
ft contested by the learned Additional
_'e':\,§':}er'ecate by asserting, that the relevant
_ datee iieken into consideration were the date of
H H 'T the hands of the State Government, as also
iseuamee of the charge memo to respondent No.1. It
V[ is 'eointed out, that as per the order rendered by the
31ear1"1er:1 Single Judge, it was undisputed that the
3' WW
{II
delinquency aileged in the charge meme pertained to
the period from March, 1989 to August, 19899.9"-I_:t':d~..is
s11bmitted, that if the learned Single .
wrongly taken into consideratien. 28. If}; ddéted' "'
date of sanction at the hands ofxe
he would 1110: have recorded ?;vf.i(?..vCOI1AC}'i1Si0_}I1dV (in '~ L'
the impugned order dated 5.VA3.e:'§V2e0e)%. V
5. We have geen’ Consideration
to the rival e(;a*’te§fii01″:e Siearned counsei
for the disputed, the
deiiI1qj{1eiieye9 charge memo dated
9.4.1999 was -ieefied’ted”-respondent No.3 pertained to
1989 to August 1989, and the
of a departmental enquiry against
after his retirement, was ganted on
See are satisfied, that Rule ‘214(‘2}(¥:)) of the
Civii Service Rules, 1958 was fully Compiied
‘ inasmuch as, not only the State Government had
‘4 granted sanction £0 initiate departmental proceedings
against reseendent No.1 after his retirement, the said
initiation of deparmaentai action by issuance of charge
memo dated 9.4.1992 had taken place Within fouryears
from the date of the aileged éelinquency. As
not possible for us to conclude, that the
action taken by the appeliant .a1ga§nst ” K 2
violated the mandate of rule 2 .’
6. For the reasor;s_V”‘rg-:-cor¢ie(i hei’§:ir;§above; we» . L’
are satisfied, that tho i21stant..{§%rit’appeoI’ ‘d.e$ofiJ€s to be
allowed. The samo” aflowed. The
procovééiiigsi No.1 on the
basis of ‘tho dated 9.4.1992 are hereby
he1é–_to with the provisions of rule
. 4} 2 }i.4[2}.{‘h) of’the”i{éffiataka oivi: Service Rules, 1958.
Sd/-3
Chief Justice
Sdl-3
Judge
bkv
Index: yes/I10