JAYARAJU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21955 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1.
JAYARAJU
S/O LATE SANJEEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
AGRICULTURE ASSISTANT
SEEDS PRODUCTION CENTRE
LINGADAHALLI TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
PIN-577 129.
2. P K KUVARAN
S/O VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT
AGRICULTURE OFFICER
MENASUR N R PURA
N R PURA TALUK
CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT
PIN-577134.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI.NAGARAJ S JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR GATE NO.3
M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALURU -560 001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALORE
CHIKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
PIN-577101.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE
SHESHADRI ROAD, K R CIRCLE,
BEGNALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO APPLICATION NO. 3702-3703/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AND UPON PERUSAL BE PLEASED
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 3702-
3703/2017 AT ANNEXURE - E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAID APPLICATIONS NO.3702-3703/2017 AS PRAYED FOR 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.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioners, unsuccessful applicants before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal are before this
Court in this writ petition, aggrieved by order dated
24.11.2021 in Application Nos.3702 and 3703 of 2017,
whereunder the petitioners' challenge to enquiry report
dated 26.06.2015 (Annexure-A8) and consequential order
of penalty dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-A11), imposing
punishment of recovery as well as compulsory retirement
under Rule 8(vi) of KSC (CCA) Rules, 1957, insofar as first
petitioner is concerned and recovery as well as withholding
25% of pension for a period of five years in respect of
second petitioner, is rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the first
petitioner is working as Agriculture Assistant, whereas the
second petitioner is a retired Assistant Agriculture Officer.
Articles of charge dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure-A4) was

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
issued to the first petitioner by the second respondent-
CEO of Zilla Panchayath, alleging 15 charges against the
petitioner. In sum and substance, charge against the first
petitioner was that he has caused loss to the government
while implementing certain works while he was working at
Watershed Department, Koppa. Second petitioner was
issued with articles of charge dated 23.05.2014 by second
respondent alleging loss caused to government while
implementing certain works while he was working as
Assistant Agriculture Officer, Watershed Department,
Koppa. It is stated that the second petitioner retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.05.2011, was holding 'Group-B' post as on the date of
retirement. Subsequent to the retirement of second
petitioner, the articles of charges were issued on
(Annexure-A12) dated 23.05.2014. Enquiry Officer was
appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the
petitioners under two individual charge memos. The
Enquiry Officer recorded common evidence and submitted

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
Common Enquiry Report dated 26.06.2015, holding that
all the charges alleged against the petitioners are proved.
It is stated that the second show cause notice was issued
enclosing the enquiry report by second respondent-CEO
dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure-A7) to first and second
petitioners. The reply submitted by the petitioners as well
as enquiry report was forwarded to the first respondent-
State and State under Government Order dated
09.06.2017 (Anneuxre-A11) imposed penalty of recovery
and penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of power
under Rule 8(vi) of KCS (CCA) Rules on first petitioner,
whereas penalty of recovery as well as penalty of
withholding 25% of pension for a period of five years was
imposed on the second petitioner. Questioning the said
order of punishment, both the petitioners were before the
Tribunal in the above-stated applications. The Tribunal
under impugned order negating the contentions of the
petitioner, rejected the petitioners' application. Aggrieved
by the order passed by the Tribunal as well as questioning

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
the order of penalty, the petitioners are before this Court
in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat
for Nagaraj S. Jain, for petitioners, learned AGA
Sri.S.C.Deshmukh, for respondents No.1 and 3 and
learned counsel Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, for respondent No.2.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat
would contend that the order of penalty dated 09.06.2017
is vitiated for the reason that the enquiry is not initiated
by competent authority. Further, learned counsel would
submit that in respect of second petitioner, the articles of
charge is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. It is
submitted that the second petitioner retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011,
whereas the articles of charge was issued on 23.05.2014
in respect of an event which had taken place between
2005 to 2010. Since the events on which the enquiry is

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
instituted against the second petitioner is prior to four
years from the date of institution of enquiry, which is
impermissible in terms of the above said Rule. Learned
Senior Counsel would submit that the penalty insofar as
second petitioner requires to be quashed. Learned Senior
Counsel Sri.Bhagawat would further submit that, insofar
as first petitioner is concerned, the enquiry is vitiated for
violation of Rule 13 of CCA Rules. Learned Senior Counsel
would submit that though two individual articles of charge
are issued, the Enquiry Officer clubbed both and conducted
a common proceedings which is impermissible. Learned
Senior Counsel would submit that once two individual
articles of charges are issued, the enquiry shall be
conducted separately on those articles of charge and
clubbing together both articles of charge and conducting
common proceedings is impermissible unless there is an
order under Rule 13 of CCA Rules. Learned Senior Counsel
would further contend that, show cause notice was issued
by second respondent, whereas the order of penalty is by

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
first respondent-State. In that he submits that the first
petitioner has lost an opportunity of filing an appeal. If the
second respondent had imposed penalty, he would have
had an opportunity to file an appeal to the next higher
authority i.e. Government. Learned Senior Counsel would
further submit that the entire enquiry is vitiated for non
passing of order under Rule 13 of CCA Rules. It is
submitted that, if at all the Government intended to
conduct common proceedings against petitioners, it ought
to have passed order under Rule 13 of CCA Rules
initiating joint enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel
Sri.Bhagawat would further submit that second respondent
could not have initiated enquiry against second petitioner
after his retirement. It is submitted that on retirement of a
Government servant only government is the competent
authority to initiate enquiry in terms of Rule 214 of KCSRs.
Since the enquiry against a retired government servant is
by second respondent-CEO, the same is not maintainable
and is vitiated. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
petition by setting aside the order of penalty as well as
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ashok N. Nayak
for second respondent would vehemently contend that two
separate articles of charges are issued and it is not a joint
enquiry. Only it if is a joint enquiry, order under Rule 13
needs to be passed. Further, it is submitted that insofar as
second petitioner is concerned, though he is retired prior
to issuance of charge, articles of charges were issued only
on obtaining sanction from the competent authority i.e.
Government. Learned counsel files memo dated
29.09.2026 enclosing letter dated 15.04.2014,
whereunder, the Commissioner, Watershed Department
was informed that permission is granted to the
Commissioner, Watershed Department to proceed against
retired second petitioner under Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs.
Further, learned counsel Sri.Ashok N. Nayak for second
respondent would submit that second respondent issued

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
second show cause notice along with enquiry report to the
petitioners, however, on obtaining reply from the
petitioners, the same was along with enquiry record
forwarded to the State Government, which is competent
authority to impose punishment against a retired
government servant. Therefore, he would submit that the
procedure followed by the second respondent is proper
and is in accordance with law.
6. Insofar as first petitioner is concerned, learned
counsel for second respondent would submit that, enquiry
is initiated and conducted in accordance with Rule 11 of
CCA Rules on the individual articles of charge. It is further
submitted that, if the common articles of charges are to be
issued, then only to conduct common enquiry, order under
Rule 13 of CCA Rules would be required. Thus, he would
pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Learned AGA for respondent-State would
submit that the enquiry against a retired second petitioner

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
was initiated with the permission of the State Government.
As such, he submits that enquiry is not vitiated. Further
learned AGA would submit that the charges against both
the petitioners are proved. The penalty imposed is
proportionate to the gravity of charge alleged against the
petitioners. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the
following points would arise for consideration.
"(1) Whether enquiry against second
petitioner is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of
KCSRs.?
(2) Whether the enquiry proceedings
which culminated in order of penalty
dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-A11) is
vitiated for non compliance of Rule 13 of
KCS (CCA) Rules?
9. The answer to the above points would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
Admittedly, the second petitioner was holding the post of
Assistant Agriculture Officer, 'Group-B' post, retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011.
Articles of charge dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure-A12) was
issued to second petitioner. The articles of charge relates to the
events which had taken place between 2005-2006 to 2009-
2010.
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.”
10. In terms of the above Rule, no enquiry could be
initiated against a retired government servant in respect of
an event prior to four years to the date of initiation of
Enquiry. Initiation of enquiry would take place immediately

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
on the date of issuance of articles of charge. In the instant
case in respect of second petitioner, articles of charge is
dated 23.05.2014. The incident on which the articles of
charge is issued to second petitioner relates to four years
prior to the date of initiation of enquiry i.e. issuance of
charge memo dated 23.05.2014. As such, the articles of
charge is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Further
articles of charge is issued by 2nd respondent CEO, Zilla
Panchayath, who has no competency to issue articles of
charge against a retired government servant. Enquiry
against retired government servant could be initiated only
by State Government in terms of Rule - 214(1) of KCSRs.
11. Insofar as first petitioner is concerned, who is
under punishment of compulsory retirement, entire
enquiry proceedings is vitiated for not following the
procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of CCA Rules.
12. In the instant case, two individual articles of
charges were issued against first and second petitioner

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
dated 10.10.2013 and 23.05.2014 respectively. The
Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charges
against petitioner, though there was no order under Rule
13, clubbed both enquiry, recorded common evidence and
submitted common enquiry report. There is no order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Government to
club both the articles of charges issued against petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 and to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry
Officer in his report records that since the alleged charge
against both the officers are common and similar, he
recorded common evidence and submitted common
report. If the charges are common and if the Disciplinary
Authority or Government intended to conduct a common
enquiry, it ought to have initiated joint enquiry in terms of
Rule 13 of CCA Rules. Rule 13 of CCA Rules, requires the
Government or any other authority competent to impose
the penalty of dismissal from service on all such
Government servants, may make an order directing that
disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
common proceedings. In the instant case, there is no such
order passed under Rule 13 to conduct a common
proceedings. If at all Disciplinary Authority or the
Government intended to conduct a common proceedings,
it ought to have passed order under Rule 13 of KCS (CCA)
Rules for conducting common proceedings even prior to
issuance of articles of charge to both petitioners.
13. The Tribunal, while appreciating the contention
that there is no order for joint inquiry, observes that the
petitioners have not pleaded the prejudice that would be
caused to them and further it noted that any minor
irregularities in the matter of conducting enquiry cannot
vitiate a finding. The said finding is contrary to the settled
position of law. Any infraction in conducting the enquiry,
vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings.
14. Learned counsel Sri.Ashok N. Nayak contended
that enquiry against second petitioner was with the
sanction of the Government under Rule 214(2)(b)(2) of

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
KCSRs. Placing reliance on letter dated 15.04.2014.
However, a perusal of the said letter it is seen that though
word used is 'permission', it is not a government order
permitting the second respondent-Zilla Panchayath to
initiate and conduct enquiry.
15. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, the
following
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 24.11.2021 of the Tribunal in
Application Nos.3702 and 3703 of 2017 is set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the order of penalty bearing
No.Kri.E2.Kri.Pa.Vi.2016 dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-
A11) is quashed.
(iv) Consequent to quashing of the order of penalty
dated 09.06.2017, the respondents are directed to

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54283-DB
WP No. 21955 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010455932021
reinstate first petitioner into service. However, the first
petitioner would be entitle to all other consequential
benefits except arrears of salary on the principle of 'no
work no pay'.
(v) The respondents are directed to settle all
pensionary benefits of second petitioner.
(vi) Time for compliance three months.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18