Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings require government sanction and must concern events within four years.

The respondents, Public Works Department engineers deputed to the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, were involved in road works executed under the NABARD-15 Plan in 2009–2010.

Following a complaint alleging misappropriation, a Lokayukta investigation reported excess payments and disciplinary proceedings were initiated.

One respondent had retired on 30 November 2014; a charge memo was issued to him on 7 October 2015.

The Lokayukta recommended withholding increments and recovery from the serving respondent, and recovery from the retired respondent’s pension. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) quashed the punishment orders and directed refund of amounts recovered. The Lokayukta challenged that common order in these writ petitions.

1. Whether departmental proceedings initiated against the retired respondent, after his retirement and without demonstrated prior Government sanction, complied with Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR).

2. Whether the proceedings were barred by the applicable time limits, having regard to the dates of the work and the complaint.

Rule 214(2)(a) of the KCSR provides that departmental proceedings instituted while a Government servant is in service may continue after retirement.

Under Rule 214(2)(b), proceedings not instituted during service require Government sanction and cannot concern an event occurring more than four years before their institution; they must also follow the prescribed procedure.

The Court also referred to Section 8(2)(c) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, as considered in Karnataka Lokayukta v. G.N. Prakash (W.P. No. 200031/2022, decided 22 July 2024), concerning complaints made more than six months after the relevant action became known to the complainant.

The Court noted that the relevant works were completed in 2009–2010 and that the retired respondent’s charge memo was issued after his retirement. The Lokayukta had not produced material showing that the Government’s sanction was obtained before proceedings were initiated against either respondent; the Court therefore held that the proceedings were contrary to Rule 214.

It also relied on the Tribunal’s finding that the relevant events fell beyond the four-year period and considered the complaint’s delay in light of G.N. Prakash.

Finding no error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court declined to interfere.