1. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question a charge sheet cum show cause notice issued on 18.12.2020 to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri. Govindaraj.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Sans unnecessary details, the brief facts that are germane for consideration of the lis are as follows:

At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the respondent- BWSSB and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016. Long after retirement of the petitioner on 18.12..2020 charge sheet was issued against him invoking Rule 214(2)(b)(i)&(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCSR’s Rule’) for an incident that had occurred from 26.08.2013 to 07.06.2014.

4. Enquiry against a retired employee can be initiated only in terms of Rule 214 of the said Rules. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii), which reads as under:

“214.[(1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence.- The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.

(b) …xxx...

(2)(a). The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:

Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority other than Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government.

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.

(i) …xxx…

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

(iii) …xxx…"

(emphasis supplied)

In terms of the afore-extracted mandate of the statute, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee, in respect of an event which has taken place more than thirteen years prior to such initiation.

Indisputably, the charge sheet issued on 18.12.2020 seeks to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for incidents from 26.08.2013 to 07.06.2014 and the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Atma Singh Grewal reported in (2014) 13 SCC 666 , [LQ/SC/2013/1063] has held as follows:

“1. Petitioner 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB); Petitioner 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRD-cum-Inquiry Officer and Petitioner 3 is the Senior Executive Engineer working in PSEB. The respondent was the employee of PSEB who retired from service, with effect from 30-4-2004. He had given the notice on 27-2-2004 for voluntary retirement which was accepted. As a result, the respondent stood voluntary retired from 30-4- 2004. However, almost four years after his retirement i.e. on 7-1-2008, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet levelling certain allegations against him, allegedly committed between 15-5-2002 to 3-12-2002. These charges which were for the period May 2002 to December 2002 were obviously of a period much earlier than four years before the serving of the charge-sheet dated 7-1-2008 and much after his retirement when he had ceased to be the employee of PSEB.

2. The respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the said charge-sheet on the ground that it was barred in view of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II which reserves right with the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances viz. when in judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence. It also provides for recovery of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso to the aforesaid provision stipulates the time-limit within which the departmental enquiry can be instituted, in respect of an ex-employee if it was not stated while such a government officer was in service. The precise language of second proviso is as follows:

“Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment—

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and if he has retired, the event should not be more than 4 years old.

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service.”

3. In the present case since the charges were of the year 2002 and charge-sheet was served in the year 2008, it was manifest that the alleged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge-sheet and after his retirement. In this ground the learned Single Judge quashed [Atma Singh Grewal v. Punjab SEB, WP (C) No. 11836 of 2008, order dated 16-2-2009 (P&H)] the said charge-sheet dated 7-1- 2008. The petitioners chose to file appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 20-8-2009 [Punjab SEB v. Atma Singh Grewal, LPA No. 752 of 2009, decided on 20-8-2009 (Tri)] .

10. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid admitted facts, second proviso of Rule 2 stares at the face of the petitioner and no fault can be found in the judgment of the High Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

In terms of the mandate of the statute and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the very initiation of proceedings by issuance of charge sheet on the petitioner does not have a sanction in law in terms of the specific bar under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the said Rules. Hence, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner becomes without jurisdiction.

For the aforementioned reasons, the orders impugned in the writ petition warrants appropriate interference. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 18.12.2020 is hereby quashed.

iii) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from setting aside of the orders and the respondents are directed to release all the terminal benefits that the petitioner is entitled to, if they are withheld on account of pendency of the present disciplinary proceedings, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.