Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 966 (KAR)

A. K. Chowdekar v. State of Karnataka

2013-08-21

B.S.INDRAKALA, K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2013
ORDER Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. Petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the Order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Application No. 7389/2011 on the file of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, at Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'A2' on the file of respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under: By Annexure-'A2', the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department was directed to lodge a complaint against the present petitioner and others on account of misappropriation of funds. The present petitioner challenged the Government Order dated 19.04.2011 at Annexure-'A2' under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (KAT). It was contended that Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (in short 'KCSR') bars all judicial proceedings after lapse of four years prior to filing of a complaint. The Tribunal, by the impugned order at Annexure 'A', dismissed the application holding that Rule 214(3) of KCSR does not bar initiating criminal proceedings. This is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government, by its Order dated 19.04.2011, have directed the Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department, Gulbarga to lodge a complaint against the present petitioner for the alleged misappropriation of funds from 14.12.1995 to 17.07.2000 as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Water Resources Department. He submits that according to Rule 214(3) of KCSR, no jurisdiction to initiate prosecution for an event that had taken place four years before the institution of such complaint, but the Tribunal erred in holding that Rule 214(3) does not bar initiating criminal action. He relies on a decision dated 19.06.2012 (unreported) made in Writ Petition No. 16385/2008 (S.G. Kumaraswamy vs. The Secretary, Revenue Department and three others) on the point that no judicial proceedings can be initiated against the Government servant in respect of an event which took place four years before the initiation of such proceedings. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. He relies on a decision dated 19.06.2012 (unreported) made in Writ Petition No. 16385/2008 (S.G. Kumaraswamy vs. The Secretary, Revenue Department and three others) on the point that no judicial proceedings can be initiated against the Government servant in respect of an event which took place four years before the initiation of such proceedings. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that in pursuance of the Government Order at Annexure 'A2', the Government official/ Gazetted Officer has lodged a complaint in Crime No. 68/2011 of Nimbarga Police against the present petitioner and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order at Annexure 'A' and Annexure-'A2'. 5. The Government, in Water Resources Department, by its communication dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure-A) has directed the Chief Engineer to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for misappropriation of fund during the period from 14.12.1995 to 17.07.2000. 6. In Para No. 4 of the impugned Order, the Tribunal has held that the Govt. has no power to initiate any judicial proceedings under sub-rule (3) of Rule 214 of the KCSR, in so far as a proposal for with-holding or withdrawal of pension for misconduct, but there is no bar under Rule 214 of KCSR to prosecute the concerned Govt. servant for the alleged misappropriation or any other offence which has been allegedly committed by him. 7. It is useful to excerpt Rule 214(3) of KCSR for immediate reference, which reads as under: Rule 214(1) .......... (2) ........... (3) No judicial proceedings, (emphasis supplied) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. 8. The words "judicial proceedings" appearing in sub-rule (3) of Rule 214 of KCSR is not defined. The intention of the State is that no judicial proceedings can be initiated against a Government servant while in service or after retirement or during his re-employment in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of any event which took place more than four years from such institution, is in relation to "civil proceedings" and not "criminal proceedings". Thus, we hold that sub-rule (3) of Rule 214 of KCSR does not bar initiating criminal action against a Government servant who is alleged to have committed an offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to mention that it cannot be the intention of the State to absolve a Government servant who has committed an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The decision rendered in S.G. Kumaraswamy's case, supra, by learned single Judge, is not correct. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order. 9. In the result, we pass the following Order: Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.