OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER v. SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

SRI. P.N. JAYASIMHA S/O P.R. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RETIRED DIG OF PRISONS R/AT NO.3, BANAGIRINAGARA 3RD MAIN, 3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI BANGALORE-85 (BY SRI. M.J. RAGHUPATHI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.4436/2016 ANENXURE-C PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 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 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The State Authorities in the Police Department are before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 18.07.2019 in Application No.4436/2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby the respondent's application challenging the Articles of Charge is allowed.

2. Heard Sri. V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. M.J.Raghupathi for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, applicant before the Tribunal, DIG of Prisons, on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.04.2015. On the same day, Articles of charge dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure-A1) was - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 issued to the respondent. According to the respondent, the Articles of charge was served on him on 05.05.2015, after his retirement. Questioning the said Articles of charge, the respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.4436/2016 contending that Articles of charge is contrary to Rule-214(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short ‘KCSR’). The Tribunal accepting the contention of respondent, allowed the application under impugned order. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Learned AGA would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in quashing the charge memo/Articles of charge only on the ground that it is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs. He submits that the charge memo is dated 30.04.2015, which is issued/dispatched on 30.04.2015 itself. Respondent was to retire from service on the said date itself i.e., 30.04.2015. The Tribunal proceeded to allow the application of the respondent taking note that the charge memo was served on 05.05.2015 subsequent to retirement of the respondent and subsequent to retirement, Articles of charge could not be issued in respect of an event which had - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 taken place more than four years prior to the date of institution. Learned AGA would submit that the Tribunal was not right in taking note of the date of service of charge memo on the respondent, to quash the Articles of charge. He submits that since the decision was taken to initiate enquiry on

30.04.2015 and the Articles of charge was issued/dispatched on the same date from the Office of the Disciplinary Authority. On the said date itself, the Articles of charge is said to have been issued while the respondent was in service. Therefore, he submits that Rule-214(2)(b) of KCSR would have no application in support of respondent's contention. Further, learned AGA would submit that, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. DINANATH SHANTARAM KAREKAR AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 7 SCC 569 by the Tribunal is misplaced and the said decision would have no application to the facts of the present case. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, Sri. M.J.Raghupathi, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that though Articles of charge is dated 30.04.2015, it was served on the respondent only on - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020

05.05.2015. As such, the relevant date would be 05.05.2015. It is further submitted that Articles of charge relates to the incident of the year 2009 onwards. As such, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that it is contrary to Rule- 214(2)(b) of KCSR. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Articles of charge is hit by Rule- 214(2)(b) of KCSR. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015. On the said date itself, the petitioner-State took a decision to initiate enquiry against respondent and issued/dispatched Articles of charge to the respondent. Admittedly, Articles of charge was served on the respondent on 05.05.2015. The relevant date to determine as to whether the Articles of charge is issued while the respondent was in service or after his retirement, would be not the service of Articles of charge on respondent, but relevant date would be date of decision to initiate enquiry and dispatch of Articles of - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 charge from the Office of Disciplinary Authority. Admittedly, the decision to initiate enquiry is taken on 30.04.2015 and Articles of charge is issued/dispatched on the same date i.e., on

30.04.2015. As such, it is to be held that Articles of charge against the respondent is issued while the respondent was in service. As such, Rule-214(2)(b) of KCSR would have no application to the facts of the present case.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. H.C.KHURANA reported in (1993) 3 SCC 196 while examining a case of denial of promotion on the ground of pending departmental enquiry, considered the word ‘issued’ and at paragraph 15, it is held as follows: “15. The meaning of the word ‘issued’, on which considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of the word ‘issue’ given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary include : ‘to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; to let out; … to give or send out authoritatively or officially; to send forth or deal formally or publicly; to emit, put circulation’. The issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 means its despatch to the government servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-sheet and despatching it to the government servant, the further fact of its actual service on the government servant not being a necessary part of requirement. This is the sense in which the word ‘issue’ was used in the expression ‘charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee’, in para 17 of the decision in Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : (1993) 23 ATC 322 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387] .” (emphasis supplied)

8. The above decision makes it abundantly clear that issue of charge sheet means it is despatch to the Government servant and act of despatch is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge sheet and despatch it to the Government servant.

9. The principles laid down in the case of DINANATH (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, enquiry was proceeded without serving charge sheet on the Delinquent Employee. In circumstance, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is for the - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51229-DB WP No. 11373 of 2020 Disciplinary Authority to prove the actual service of charge memo or show-cause notice on the Delinquent Official.

10. In view of the above circumstances, the following: ORDER (a) Writ Petition is allowed, order dated 18.07.2019 in Application No.4436/2016 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and application stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12