Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings are barred for events occurring more than four years before initiation.

The first petitioner, an Agriculture Assistant, and the second petitioner, a retired Assistant Agriculture Officer, faced separate disciplinary charge memos concerning alleged losses to the Government during watershed works.

The second petitioner retired on 31 May 2011; charges relating to events from 2005–06 to 2009–10 were issued to him on 23 May 2014.

The Enquiry Officer recorded common evidence and submitted a common report against both petitioners.

The State imposed compulsory retirement and recovery on the first petitioner, and recovery and withholding of 25% of pension for five years on the second.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications challenging the inquiry and penalties; they then petitioned the High Court.

Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs bars departmental proceedings instituted after a government servant’s retirement in respect of an event that occurred more than four years before institution of the proceedings; the Court treated issuance of the charge memo as the date of institution.

The Court also held that proceedings against a retired government servant may be initiated only by the State Government under Rule 214(1) of the KCSRs.

Under Rule 13 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, a common disciplinary proceeding against multiple government servants requires an order by the Government or other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on all of them.

The Court further stated that non-compliance with the prescribed inquiry procedure vitiates the proceedings.

The second petitioner’s charge memo was issued on 23 May 2014, more than four years after the events alleged, and therefore fell within the bar in Rule 214(2)(b)(ii).

The charge memo was issued by the Zilla Panchayat CEO, whom the Court held was not competent to initiate proceedings against a retired government servant; the cited letter granting “permission” did not constitute a Government order authorising the inquiry.

As to the first petitioner, although separate charge memos had been issued, the Enquiry Officer combined the inquiries, recorded common evidence, and submitted a common report without an order under Rule 13.

The Court held that the absence of that order vitiated the inquiry and rejected the Tribunal’s view that the petitioners had to demonstrate prejudice.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the first petitioner, with consequential benefits but without arrears of salary on the principle of “no work, no pay,” and to settle the second petitioner’s pensionary benefits within three months.