A de novo departmental inquiry cannot be initiated against a retired employee through fresh charges.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal quashed the orders compulsorily retiring the petitioner and directed that no recovery be made, but reserved liberty to the respondents to initiate a joint enquiry by issuing articles of charge under Rule 13 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957.

The petitioner challenged that liberty, arguing that the proposed enquiry would be a de novo enquiry after his retirement and that coordinate benches had struck down similar directions in cases involving retired employees.

The High Court considered those decisions and disposed of the petition.

Whether the Tribunal could reserve liberty to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry by issuing articles of charge against the petitioner after his retirement.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have that part of the Tribunal’s order quashed in light of the coordinate-bench decisions concerning retired employees.

The Court considered Rule 13 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, under which the Tribunal had contemplated a joint enquiry through the issuance of articles of charge.

It also relied on the restriction associated with Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (referred to in the judgment’s discussion of the coordinate-bench decisions as Rule 214 of the CCA Rules), concerning initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant for stale incidents.

The Court adopted the principle that directing issuance of a charge sheet after retirement would commence a de novo enquiry, which could not be sustained in the circumstances.

It relied on the coordinate-bench decisions in W.P. Nos. 28243/2025 and 21218/2024, and W.P. No. 203096/2024.

The Tribunal had quashed the original proceedings but preserved the respondents’ ability to begin a new joint enquiry by issuing charges.

The High Court found that this direction would result in a de novo enquiry against the petitioner after retirement.

Applying the reasoning of the coordinate benches, it concluded that such a fresh enquiry was impermissible in the circumstances and that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief granted in those matters.

The Court did not otherwise set out an order granting the petitioner’s requested monetary benefits in this judgment.