Retired Officer’s Challenge to Post-Retirement Disciplinary Inquiry Revived After Karnataka HC Finds Tribunal Didn’t Hear Lokayukta

Respondent No. 1, a retired Taluk Extension Officer, was alleged to have committed irregularities while serving between 2013 and 2016.

Following a complaint, the Lokayukta investigated under Section 9(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and forwarded a report under Section 12(3), after which disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 214(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR).

Respondent No. 1 challenged the entrustment of the inquiry and the articles of charge before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal disposed of his application, granting the Government liberty to take fresh action if permissible under Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSR.

The Lokayukta challenged that order, contending that it had been made without hearing it.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India empower the High Court to review orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

The principles of natural justice require that a party whose interests are affected by an order be afforded an opportunity to be heard.

Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSR was relevant to the Tribunal’s liberty granted to the Government to take fresh action, but the High Court made no determination on the merits of its application.

The Tribunal disposed of Respondent No. 1’s application without providing the Lokayukta an opportunity to participate, although the challenge concerned proceedings arising from the Lokayukta’s investigation and report.

The High Court held that this omission violated the principles of natural justice and was sufficient to set aside the Tribunal’s order.

It expressly left the substantive questions concerning Rule 214(2)(b) and the disciplinary proceedings undecided.

Respondent No. 1’s application was restored to the Tribunal, which was directed to hear the Lokayukta and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The High Court made no adjudication on the merits and kept all parties’ contentions open.