THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI L N MOHAN KUMAR,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 28213 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
FINANCE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
ND
2 FLOOR, TIMC A BLOCK,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.

3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E), PARK HOUSE ROAD,
P.B.NO.5329,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)


AND:

SRI L N MOHAN KUMAR,
S/O LAKSHMINARASE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
O/O THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.










Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


RESIDING AT NO.1018,
ST ND
1 MAIN, 2 CROSS,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ADITYA R CHAKRAGIRI, ADV. FOR C/R1)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/
DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02.04.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.4277 OF 2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioners-State Authorities in Finance (Excise
Department) are before this Court, questioning the order
dated 02.04.2026 passed in Application No.4277/2025 by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru
(for short “Tribunal”), whereunder, the Tribunal issued
following directions:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


“(i) The respondents are directed to grant
pension to the applicant in terms of Rule 285 of
KCSRs treating the period from 07.06.2008 to
26.07.2011, the date on which the endorsement
was issued to him as per Annexure-A16 till today
as additional qualifying service apart from 13 years
4 months and 15 days. But he is not entitled for
any back wages from 07.06.2008 the date on
which he was permitted to retire till 26.07.2011,
the date of issuing endorsement.

(ii) This exercise shall be done within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent
retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2025. Prior to his retirement,
on 20.07.2019 there was a complaint against the
respondent before the Karnataka Lokayukta. On
investigation, it is stated that a charge sheet was filed
against the respondent in the year 2021 and the said
charge sheet was the subject matter of
Crl.P.No.101965/2023 before this Court. This Court, by its

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


order dated 20.12.2023 quashed the said charge sheet.
In the meanwhile it is stated that on 11.10.2023, on the
same allegations, an Articles of charge was issued to the
respondent which was the subject matter of Application
No.30/2024 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order
dated 03.09.2024 quashed the Articles of Charge
remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for de-
nova consideration from the stage of processing the
subject complaint, in the manner observed in the order. It
is stated that subsequently, on 16.01.2026, notice under
Section 7 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act was issued to the
respondent.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application
before the Tribunal in Application No.4277/2025 praying
for a direction to the petitioners herein to settle all the
pensionary benefits along with interest. The Tribunal
noticing that there is no departmental enquiry pending
against the respondent, directed the petitioners herein as

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


extracted above. Questioning the said order of the
Tribunal, the petitioners-State Authorities are before this
Court in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Vikas Rojipura for petitioners-State and learned
counsel Sri.Aditya Chakragiri for respondent. Perused the
entire writ petition papers.

5. Learned AGA for petitioners-State would submit that
the complaint against the respondent was dated
20.07.2019 and based on the said complaint, the Articles
of charge came to be issued on 11.10.2023. The said
Articles of Charge though was quashed in Application
No.30/2024 by order dated 03.09.2024 liberty was
reserved to the State Authorities to process the subject
matter afresh. Therefore, he contends that it is
continuation of cause of action and it would amount to
continuation of proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal could
not have directed the petitioners herein to settle the retrial

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


benefits of the respondent. Further, learned AGA would
submit that already notice under Section 7 of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act has been issued on 16.01.2026
and the proceedings would result in framing of Articles of
Charge against the respondent. Thus, he would submit
that the Tribunal is not justified in directing settlement of
pension and pensionary benefits.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Aditya
Chakragiri for respondent would submit that as on the
date of retirement of the respondent, there was no enquiry
or judicial proceedings or criminal proceedings pending
against the respondent, as such, the petitioners had no
competency to withhold retrial benefits of the respondent.
Learned counsel would submit that when the Articles of
Charge are quashed and when there are no other
proceedings pending against the respondent, the
petitioners have no option but to release all the retrial
benefits. Learned counsel with regard to continuation of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


cause of action or continuation of proceedings already
initiated, placed reliance on the order of a co-ordinate
bench of this Court dated 16.08.2026 in
W.P.No.18589/2026 c/w W.P.No.37007/2025 and prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the
considered view that the State Authorities have not made
out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal.

8. We have gone through the order passed by the
Tribunal. Though the Tribunal is justified in directing
settlement of retirement benefits of the respondent, but
not justified in placing reliance on the decision in STATE
OF JARKHAND AND OTHERS v/s JITENDRA KUMAR
SRIVATSAVA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013)12
SCC 210 . Admittedly, there was no departmental enquiry
or judicial enquiry proceedings pending against the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


respondent as on the date of his retirement i.e., on
30.06.2025. This Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS VS. SRI.H.S.YATHI KUMAR
(W.P.No.4583/2026 DATED 07.08.2026) taking note
of the Rules prevailing in the State of Karnataka i.e., Rule
214 and 214-A of KCSRs, distinguished JITENDRA
KUMAR SRIVATSAVA (supra). Relevant paragraphs 9 to
13 reads as follows:
“9. It is an admitted fact that the
respondent was working as Block Education Officer
and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.05.2023. It is also an admitted fact that the
articles of charge dated 04.09.2024 in respect of an
event which had taken place in April-2022 i.e.,
leakage of SSLC question papers was issued to the
petitioner. As contended by learned Additional
Government Advocate, Rule 214A of KCSRs
empowers the State to withdrew gratuity or death-
cum-retirement gratuity and to pay only provisional
pension not exceeding the maximum pension where
any departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted
under Rule 214 of KCSRs or where a departmental
proceedings during his service.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


10. Rule 214 empowers the State or
reserves right either to withhold or withdraw the
pension or part thereof either permanently or for a
specified period, if in any departmental or judicial
proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service.

11. Further, if enquiry is not instituted
during the service of the Government servant,
departmental proceedings shall not be instituted for
an event which had taken place four years prior to
the date of institution of departmental proceedings
i.e., issuing articles of charge. A Government servant
is provided protection under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of
KCSRS by prescribing limitation to institute a
departmental proceedings. However, in terms of Rule
214-A of KCSRS, the State is empowered to withhold
gratuity or DCRG during the pendency of
departmental proceedings.

12. The case of JITENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (supra) would have n o application to
the facts of the present case. In view of prevailing
Rule in the State of Karnataka in terms of Rule 214
and 214-A of KCSRS, the Tribunal could not have
made applicable the ratio of the said case. Rule 43
referred to in JITENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


(supra) is akin to Rule 214 of KCSRs. However, Rule
akin to 214-A is not referred to or was not available
in the service Rules of the State of Jarkhand. Rule
214A of KCSRs makes all the difference for
application of the decision of JITENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (supra) to the facts of the present
case.

13. The Tribunal day in an day out considers
Rule 214 and 214-A of KCSRs. However, the Tribunal
has failed to understand and apply the rigour of the
said Rule to the facts of the present case. The
Tribunal blindly applied the ratio of JITENDRA
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (supra), without discussing
Rule 214 or 214A of KCSRs.”

9. However, we do not find any error in directing
settlement of retrial benefits of the respondent. The
contention of the learned AGA for petitioners-State is that
the cause of action survives and it would be continuation
of cause of action in terms of earlier Articles of Charge
dated 11.10.2023, is opposed to the decision of Co-
ordinate bench of this Court dated 06.08.2026 in
W.P.No.18589/2026 and W.P.No.37007/2025. The co-

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


ordinate bench of this Court under similar or identical fact
situation at paragraphs 21 to 24 has held as follows:
“21. In the above circumstances, whether
the subsequent articles of charge dated 29.03.2026
could be considered as continuation of earlier
articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 and whether as
contended by learned Additional Advocate General,
the time spent in the Court challenging articles of
charge dated 13.06.2016 is to be excluded while
computing limitation? The answer would be a
definite ‘No’, since the earlier enquiry under articles
of charge dated 13.06.2016 was held to be without
the approval of competent authority and the same
was also held to be without jurisdiction, by the
Tribunal vide Order dated 12.11.2024 in Application
No.3924/2024. Admittedly, the State has accepted
the said finding, as the Order dated 12.11.2024 in
Application No.3924/2024 has not been challenged
by the State before this Court or any other Court
for that matter and hence, attained finality. When
once the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is set
aside on the ground of non-approval by the
competent authority and the issue having attained
finality, the same would not exist in the eyes of
law.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026



22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD., VS. CHURCH
OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION CSI
CINOD SECRETARIAT, MADRAS reported in
(1992) 3 SCC 1 , has held that when once the
Court quashes a proceedings, the proceedings
which is quashed would not exist in the eye of law.
Therefore, the subsequent articles of charge dated
29.03.2025 cannot be considered as continuation of
earlier enquiry under articles of charge dated
13.06.2016. Further, when the earlier enquiry is by
an incompetent authority or without the approval of
competent authority, the respondents would not be
entitled to exclude the time spent before this Court.
If we accept the said contention and permit the
State to exclude the time spent in litigation, it
would amount to reviving a quashed proceedings,
which is impermissible.

23. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs reads as
follows:
“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.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


(i) …………

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which
took place more than four years before such
institution.”

In terms of the above Rule, enquiry could be
instituted against a retired Government servant for
an event which had taken place within four years
from the date of initiation of enquiry i.e., date of
articles of charge. The initiation of enquiry under
articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is for the
incidents alleged to have taken place between
02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014. Admittedly, the
petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2014.
Therefore, the articles of charge issued on
29.03.2025 is totally contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii)
of KCSRs.

24. Statutory Rules prescribe the limitation.
Limitation prescribed under statute or rule cannot
be extended by the Court. This Court has no power
to extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds or on the ground that nature and gravity of
charge are very serious. Even if the Court grants
liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on quashing of
the earlier proceedings, the exercise of such liberty

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57160-DB
WP No. 28213 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010626302026


shall be in accordance with law. If the law permits
fresh proceedings, then it could be initiated.”

Respectfully following the decision of the
co-ordinate Benches (supra), we dismiss the present writ
petition.


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE


MPK
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14