- 1 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 18589/2026 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 37007/2025 (S-KSAT) IN WP NO. 18589/2026 BETWEEN: DR. B O HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE HIREHALLI OBAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RETIRED AS DIRECTOR BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA B V K S LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA CHITRADURGA - 577501 PH: 9448322889 Email id: [email protected] Digitally signed by …PETITIONER NANJUNDACHARI (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL A/W Location: High SRI SATISH K., ADV.) Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M S BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001. 2. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585401. 3. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SMT. PRAJWALA SATHYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); II) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER, AS PRAYED FOR, ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. IN WP NO. 37007/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL EDUCATION), BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, BMCRI OLD BUILDING, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) - 3 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 AND: 1. DR. B O HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE HIREHALLI OBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED AS DIRECTOR, BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, R/AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, B.V.K.S. LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) KARNATAKA, P.B. NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 401.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH M., ADV. FOR R1 SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R2 SMT. PRAJWALA SATHYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2025 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3926/2024 AND B) PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 17.07.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 4 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Both the above writ petitions arise between the same parties and as common facts and common questions of law arise, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.18589/2026, the unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court questioning order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025, whereunder mainly petitioner’s challenge to the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) as barred by limitation, is rejected.

3. In W.P.No.37007/2025, the respondent – State Authorities in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024, directing to settle pension and other retiral benefits including DCRG, - 5 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 Gratuity, leave encashment and any other pensionary benefits along with applicable rate of interest from the date of due till accrual to the petitioner. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the above writ petitions are that, the petitioner while working as Principal of Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bidar (for short, ‘BIMS’), was selected and appointed as Director, BIMS for a period of three years or till he attains the age of 58 years on 01.10.2007. The petitioner is said to have reported to duty on 03.10.2007. The petitioner was once again appointed as Director by Government notification dated 23.05.2011 for a period of three years. In the year 2014, there was a complaint against the petitioner and on preliminary enquiry on 15.02.2014, an order was passed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Director of BIMS. However, the said relieving order was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from his duties as Director of the BIMS on 21.06.2014. - 6 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

5. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014. Nearly two years from the date of petitioner’s retirement, a departmental enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner by issuing articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-A24). It is stated that the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 14.07.2016. The said articles of charge was the subject matter of W.P.No.15428/2017 and W.P.No.15429/2017 as well as W.A.No.19/2019. This Court by order dated 25.06.2024 disposed of W.P.No.15428/2017 and W.P.No.15429/2017 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’). 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 in Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2024 quashed the order initiating the enquiry dated 13.06.2016 as well as articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 and remitted the matter to the Government to comply the requirements of Rule 36 of the - 7 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘Rules, 1977’) by getting approval of the Chief Minister and to issue fresh articles of charge if so advised within four months. It is stated that the four months time granted by the Tribunal expired on 11.03.2025 and thereafter on 29.03.2025 permission was accorded by the competent authority for initiation of enquiry and on the same day, fresh articles of charge was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have submitted his written statement of defence on 23.05.2025. 7. Subsequently, by order dated 24.06.2025 the first respondent – Government appointed a retired District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer and CAO of the BIMS as the Presenting Officer. When the Enquiry Officer issued notice to appear, the petitioner approached the Tribunal questioning the initiation of enquiry as well as articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 in Application No.3923/2025. It is stated that initially the Tribunal by interim order dated 02.09.2025 stayed the enquiry. However, by impugned order dated 01.06.2026 rejected - 8 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 the Application of the petitioner challenging the articles of charge holding that the enquiry has been initiated in terms of liberty granted and initial initiation of enquiry in the year 2016 was within four years. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in W.P.No.18589/2026.

8. The petitioner had filed one more application in Application No.3926/2024 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle pension and all retirement benefits when at the first instance, articles of charge was quashed by order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 11.02.2025 directed the respondents to settle pension and other retiral benefits along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents are before this Court in W.P.No.37007/2025. 9. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat along with learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob - 9 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 along with Sri.V.Shivareddy and Sri.Harisha.A.S., learned Additional Government Advocates for respondents. Perused both the writ petition papers.

10. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat as well as learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014. Whereas, for the alleged incident between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014, a departmental enquiry came to be initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016, which was the subject matter of Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2025 allowed the Application of the petitioner accepting the contention of the petitioner that the initiation of enquiry by issuance of articles of charge is without the approval of competent authority i.e., Chief Minister or Council of Ministers, quashed the articles of charge with an observation that after getting such approval, it is for the respondent authorities to issue fresh articles of charge, if so advised. While disposing of the above Application, the Tribunal granted four months time. - 10 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

However, it is submitted that the respondent authorities after obtaining approval from the competent authority i.e., Chief Minister, issued fresh articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31), after more than four months. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charge memo issued on 29.03.2025 is beyond four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner as well as beyond four years from the date of occurrence of the incident. As such, the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. 11. It is contended that even assuming that first enquiry instituted by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 was within the period of limitation, it was initiated by incompetent authority. As such, the second articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 cannot be considered as continuation of first articles of charge. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Tribunal fell into error in coming to the conclusion that the first initiation of enquiry in the year 2016 was within four years of the retirement and the rejection of petitioner’s contention that mere - 11 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 granting liberty does not amount to extension of the statutory period, as farfetched contention, is without appreciating the fact that the earlier charge memo, though was initiated within four years was by an incompetent authority, without the approval of the Chief Minister.

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contended that the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is issued beyond four months time granted by the Tribunal, as such, the same requires interference. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 would submit that articles of charge are vague inasmuch as no details are forthcoming so as to answer and defend the charge. Thus, learned counsels for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the articles of charge and consequently to direct settlement of pension and pensionary benefits. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that the present - 12 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) is a continuation of first articles of charge dated 13.06.2016. As such, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs would have no application. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that as the Tribunal while quashing the earlier articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 remitted the matter back to the Government to get approval of the competent authority, as such, when the first enquiry initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is within the period of limitation, the present articles of charge which is in continuation would not be beyond four years and four years limitation cannot be applied in the peculiar facts of the present case. Furthermore, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the petitioner from the year 2016 is before this Court or before the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge and as the proceedings are at the instance of petitioner himself, the time spent before this Court as well as Tribunal is to be excluded while computing the four years time, while calculating the four years limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. - 13 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

15. Learned Additional Advocate General would further with regard to contention that the articles of charge issued is beyond four months time granted by the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal passed the order on 12.11.2024 and the subsequent articles of charge issued on 29.03.2025 is within the time of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Learned Additional Advocate General with regard to the contention of vagueness of the charge submits that the said contention cannot be gone into at this stage and it is open for the petitioner to raise the same before the Enquiry Officer. 16. Further, learned Additional Advocate General taking us through the articles of charge would submit that the charges are very serious in nature and since the petitioner has caused huge financial loss, the respondents be permitted to go ahead with the enquiry. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the direction issued by the Tribunal dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024 directing settlement of pension - 14 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 and pensionary benefits, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.37007/2025, would depend on the outcome of W.P.No.18589/2026. 17. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration:

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances, articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) is barred by limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025 (subject matter of W.P.No.18589/2026) warrants interference? 3. Whether the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024 (subject matter of W.P.No.37007/2025) warrants interference? 18. Answer to the above points would be in affirmative, affirmative and negative respectively, for the following reasons: - 15 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

The petitioner was working as Director of BIMS from December, 2005 to June, 2014. Admittedly, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.08.2014. Subsequent to his retirement, articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-A24) was issued on the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner for the period between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014. The said articles of charge was the subject matter of Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2024 allowed the said Application and quashed the impugned order of initiation of enquiry dated 13.06.2016 and articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 holding that Rule 36 of Transaction of Business Rules are not complied with. Rule 36 of Transaction of Business Rules requires or mandates approval of the Chief Minister for initiation of enquiry against a Group-A senior scale officer that too, cases falling under II Schedule to the said Rules. In other words, the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 issued against the petitioner was by an incompetent authority and was without jurisdiction. - 16 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 20. The Tribunal passed the following order on 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024:

“7. Hence, the application is allowed and the impugned order bearing No.AaaKuKa.155.MSF.2012 dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and produced vide Annexure-A23 and the impugned charge memo bearing No.AaaKuKa.155.MSF.2012 dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and produced vide Annexure-A24 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to comply the requirements of Rule 36 of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 by getting approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister or Council of Ministers. After getting such approval, it is for the respondent authorities to issue the fresh Articles of Charge, if so advised. Time for compliance is four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The Tribunal on setting aside the initiation of enquiry dated 13.06.2016 as well as articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 remitted the matter back to the first respondent to get approval from the Chief Minister or Council of Ministers. However, the Tribunal has not granted liberty to issue fresh articles of charge simpliciter. - 17 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 It has only observed that it is for the respondent authorities to issue the fresh articles of charge, if so advised.

21. In the above circumstances, whether the subsequent articles of charge dated 29.03.2026 could be considered as continuation of earlier articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 and whether as contended by learned Additional Advocate General, the time spent in the Court challenging articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is to be excluded while computing limitation? The answer would be a definite ‘No’, since the earlier enquiry under articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 was held to be without the approval of competent authority and the same was also held to be without jurisdiction, by the Tribunal vide Order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024. Admittedly, the State has accepted the said finding, as the Order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024 has not been challenged by the State before this Court or any other Court for that matter and hence, attained finality. When once the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is set - 18 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 aside on the ground of non-approval by the competent authority and the issue having attained finality, the same would not exist in the eyes of law. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD., VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION CSI CINOD

SECRETARIAT, MADRAS reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1, has held that when once the Court quashes a proceedings, the proceedings which is quashed would not exist in the eye of law. Therefore, the subsequent articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 cannot be considered as continuation of earlier enquiry under articles of charge dated 13.06.2016. Further, when the earlier enquiry is by an incompetent authority or without the approval of competent authority, the respondents would not be entitled to exclude the time spent before this Court. If we accept the said contention and permit the State to exclude the time spent in litigation, it would amount to reviving a quashed proceedings, which is impermissible. 23. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs reads as follows: - 19 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 “214 (2) (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) ………… (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.”

In terms of the above Rule, enquiry could be instituted against a retired Government servant for an event which had taken place within four years from the date of initiation of enquiry i.e., date of articles of charge. The initiation of enquiry under articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is for the incidents alleged to have taken place between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2014. Therefore, the articles of charge issued on 29.03.2025 is totally contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. 24. Statutory Rules prescribe the limitation. Limitation prescribed under statute or rule cannot be extended by the Court. This Court has no power to extend - 20 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 the period of limitation on equitable grounds or on the ground that nature and gravity of charge are very serious. Even if the Court grants liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on quashing of the earlier proceedings, the exercise of such liberty shall be in accordance with law. If the law permits fresh proceedings, then it could be initiated. 25. The articles of charge contains ten charges against the petitioner, which read as follows:

“qÁ.qÁ.qÁ.qÁ. ©.N.©.N.©.N.©.N. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.¤z¤z¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.ÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.ÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ. ©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, ©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï EªÀgÀEªÀgÀEªÀgÀEªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ. qÁ. ©.N. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà, ¤ªÀÈvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, ©ÃzÀgï DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.12.2005 jAzÀ 15.02.2014 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹zÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À Rjâ, gÁ¸ÁAiÀĤPÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À Rjâ ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼À°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀPÉÌ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-1:1:1:1:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ (¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉUÀ¼À°è - 21 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 ¥ÁgÀzÀ±ÀðPÀvÉ) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2000 gÀ G¥À®§ÞUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ Rjâ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À.

DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-2:2:2:2:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è£À ¤ÃgÀÄ ±ÀÄ¢ÝÃPÀgÀt ¹ÜgÀAiÀÄAvÀæzÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ¤UÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj WÀlPÀzÀ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÉÆÃVUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸Áܦ¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-3:3:3:3:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è gÉÆÃVUÀ¼À aQvÉìUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÁÝUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ SÁ¸ÀV D¸ÀàvÉæUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ qÀAiÀiÁUÉÆùÖPïUÀ½UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß §qÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀÄ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ ¤gÁPÀj¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-4:4:4:4:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä SÁAiÀÄA ¹§âA¢ EzÁÝUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è£À ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-5:5:5:5:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÉÃvÀ£À ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÉÆÃZÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À - 22 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-6:6:6:6:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ OµÀ¢üUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ PÉ«ÄPÀ¯ïìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß mÉAqÀgï §zÀ¯ÁV PÉÆmÉõÀ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ Rjâ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 2011-12£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀÄgÀÄ mÉAqÀgïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «±ÉõÀvÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà Rjâ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-7:7:7:7:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-7:7:7:7:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-8:8:8:8:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ°è Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §¼ÀPÉ DUÀzÉà ¢ÃWÁðªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ MAzÉà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è G½¢zÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ, DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-9:9:9:9:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¯Áå¨ï ºÁUÀÆ Integrated disease surveillance project £Àr ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ gÀÆ.3,56,278/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.8,00,00/- UÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ - 23 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

Laboratory instruments C£ÀÄß Rjâ¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥À-10:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À10:10:10: qÁ: ¸ÀĨsÁ±ï aªÀÄPÉÆÃqÉ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ M§â dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV, ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÄPÁw ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ, PÀvÀðªÀå ¥Á®£ÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀæ ¤®ðPÀëpåvÀ£À ªÀ»¹, ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2021 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(1)(i) (ii) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (iii) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀÄwÛÃj.” On perusal of the above charge, it is clear that the charge would not contain any details and no prudent person can understand the charge and reply or defend himself. The first charge relates to purchase of apparatus and furniture in violation of Karnataka Transparency Act and Rules. However, it would not give details of the apparatus or furniture purchased or it would not give details during which period it was purchased. Charge No.6 also relates to - 24 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 purchase and it would also not contain any particulars. Each of the charges are so vague that no prudent person could understand or could reply to such charge. Issuance of such vague charge sheet/memo is deliberate or otherwise is not known.

26. In view of the above findings, we need not examine any other ground urged by the petitioner or respondents. 27. As we have concluded that the articles of charge is hit by limitation prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, the respondents are required to settle pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, if there is no other enquiry pending against the petitioner. Therefore, examining the issues raised in W.P.No.37007/2025 would not arise. 28. For the reasons recorded above, W.P.No.18589/2026 deserves to be allowed and consequently, W.P.No.37007/2025 deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following: - 25 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 ORDER i) W.P.No.18589/2026 is allowed. ii) Order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025 is set aside and consequently, articles of charge bearing No.DPÀÄPÀ 59 JAJ¸ïJ¥sï 2025 dated 29.03.2025 and all other further proceedings are quashed. iii) W.P.No.37007/2025 stands dismissed. iv) The respondents are given three months time to comply with the direction dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024 passed by the Tribunal, if no other enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE NC CT:bms

- 1 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 18589/2026 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 37007/2025 (S-KSAT) IN WP NO. 18589/2026 BETWEEN: DR. B O HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE HIREHALLI OBAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RETIRED AS DIRECTOR BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA B V K S LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA CHITRADURGA - 577501 PH: 9448322889 Email id: [email protected] Digitally signed by …PETITIONER NANJUNDACHARI (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SR. COUNSEL A/W Location: High SRI SATISH K., ADV.) Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M S BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001. 2. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585401. 3. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SMT. PRAJWALA SATHYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); II) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.3923/2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER, AS PRAYED FOR, ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. IN WP NO. 37007/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL EDUCATION), BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, BMCRI OLD BUILDING, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) - 3 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 AND: 1. DR. B O HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE HIREHALLI OBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED AS DIRECTOR, BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, R/AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, B.V.K.S. LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) KARNATAKA, P.B. NO.5329, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 401.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH M., ADV. FOR R1 SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R2 SMT. PRAJWALA SATHYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2025 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3926/2024 AND B) PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 17.07.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 4 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Both the above writ petitions arise between the same parties and as common facts and common questions of law arise, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.18589/2026, the unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court questioning order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025, whereunder mainly petitioner’s challenge to the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) as barred by limitation, is rejected.

3. In W.P.No.37007/2025, the respondent – State Authorities in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024, directing to settle pension and other retiral benefits including DCRG, - 5 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 Gratuity, leave encashment and any other pensionary benefits along with applicable rate of interest from the date of due till accrual to the petitioner. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the above writ petitions are that, the petitioner while working as Principal of Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bidar (for short, ‘BIMS’), was selected and appointed as Director, BIMS for a period of three years or till he attains the age of 58 years on 01.10.2007. The petitioner is said to have reported to duty on 03.10.2007. The petitioner was once again appointed as Director by Government notification dated 23.05.2011 for a period of three years. In the year 2014, there was a complaint against the petitioner and on preliminary enquiry on 15.02.2014, an order was passed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Director of BIMS. However, the said relieving order was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from his duties as Director of the BIMS on 21.06.2014. - 6 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

5. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014. Nearly two years from the date of petitioner’s retirement, a departmental enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner by issuing articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-A24). It is stated that the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 14.07.2016. The said articles of charge was the subject matter of W.P.No.15428/2017 and W.P.No.15429/2017 as well as W.A.No.19/2019. This Court by order dated 25.06.2024 disposed of W.P.No.15428/2017 and W.P.No.15429/2017 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’). 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 in Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2024 quashed the order initiating the enquiry dated 13.06.2016 as well as articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 and remitted the matter to the Government to comply the requirements of Rule 36 of the - 7 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘Rules, 1977’) by getting approval of the Chief Minister and to issue fresh articles of charge if so advised within four months. It is stated that the four months time granted by the Tribunal expired on 11.03.2025 and thereafter on 29.03.2025 permission was accorded by the competent authority for initiation of enquiry and on the same day, fresh articles of charge was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have submitted his written statement of defence on 23.05.2025. 7. Subsequently, by order dated 24.06.2025 the first respondent – Government appointed a retired District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer and CAO of the BIMS as the Presenting Officer. When the Enquiry Officer issued notice to appear, the petitioner approached the Tribunal questioning the initiation of enquiry as well as articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 in Application No.3923/2025. It is stated that initially the Tribunal by interim order dated 02.09.2025 stayed the enquiry. However, by impugned order dated 01.06.2026 rejected - 8 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 the Application of the petitioner challenging the articles of charge holding that the enquiry has been initiated in terms of liberty granted and initial initiation of enquiry in the year 2016 was within four years. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in W.P.No.18589/2026.

8. The petitioner had filed one more application in Application No.3926/2024 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle pension and all retirement benefits when at the first instance, articles of charge was quashed by order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 11.02.2025 directed the respondents to settle pension and other retiral benefits along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents are before this Court in W.P.No.37007/2025. 9. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat along with learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob - 9 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 along with Sri.V.Shivareddy and Sri.Harisha.A.S., learned Additional Government Advocates for respondents. Perused both the writ petition papers.

10. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat as well as learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014. Whereas, for the alleged incident between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014, a departmental enquiry came to be initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016, which was the subject matter of Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2025 allowed the Application of the petitioner accepting the contention of the petitioner that the initiation of enquiry by issuance of articles of charge is without the approval of competent authority i.e., Chief Minister or Council of Ministers, quashed the articles of charge with an observation that after getting such approval, it is for the respondent authorities to issue fresh articles of charge, if so advised. While disposing of the above Application, the Tribunal granted four months time. - 10 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

However, it is submitted that the respondent authorities after obtaining approval from the competent authority i.e., Chief Minister, issued fresh articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31), after more than four months. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charge memo issued on 29.03.2025 is beyond four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner as well as beyond four years from the date of occurrence of the incident. As such, the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. 11. It is contended that even assuming that first enquiry instituted by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 was within the period of limitation, it was initiated by incompetent authority. As such, the second articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 cannot be considered as continuation of first articles of charge. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Tribunal fell into error in coming to the conclusion that the first initiation of enquiry in the year 2016 was within four years of the retirement and the rejection of petitioner’s contention that mere - 11 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 granting liberty does not amount to extension of the statutory period, as farfetched contention, is without appreciating the fact that the earlier charge memo, though was initiated within four years was by an incompetent authority, without the approval of the Chief Minister.

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contended that the articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is issued beyond four months time granted by the Tribunal, as such, the same requires interference. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 would submit that articles of charge are vague inasmuch as no details are forthcoming so as to answer and defend the charge. Thus, learned counsels for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the articles of charge and consequently to direct settlement of pension and pensionary benefits. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that the present - 12 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) is a continuation of first articles of charge dated 13.06.2016. As such, Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs would have no application. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that as the Tribunal while quashing the earlier articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 remitted the matter back to the Government to get approval of the competent authority, as such, when the first enquiry initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is within the period of limitation, the present articles of charge which is in continuation would not be beyond four years and four years limitation cannot be applied in the peculiar facts of the present case. Furthermore, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the petitioner from the year 2016 is before this Court or before the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge and as the proceedings are at the instance of petitioner himself, the time spent before this Court as well as Tribunal is to be excluded while computing the four years time, while calculating the four years limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. - 13 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

15. Learned Additional Advocate General would further with regard to contention that the articles of charge issued is beyond four months time granted by the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal passed the order on 12.11.2024 and the subsequent articles of charge issued on 29.03.2025 is within the time of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Learned Additional Advocate General with regard to the contention of vagueness of the charge submits that the said contention cannot be gone into at this stage and it is open for the petitioner to raise the same before the Enquiry Officer. 16. Further, learned Additional Advocate General taking us through the articles of charge would submit that the charges are very serious in nature and since the petitioner has caused huge financial loss, the respondents be permitted to go ahead with the enquiry. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the direction issued by the Tribunal dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024 directing settlement of pension - 14 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 and pensionary benefits, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.37007/2025, would depend on the outcome of W.P.No.18589/2026. 17. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration:

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances, articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A31) is barred by limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025 (subject matter of W.P.No.18589/2026) warrants interference? 3. Whether the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024 (subject matter of W.P.No.37007/2025) warrants interference? 18. Answer to the above points would be in affirmative, affirmative and negative respectively, for the following reasons: - 15 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

The petitioner was working as Director of BIMS from December, 2005 to June, 2014. Admittedly, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.08.2014. Subsequent to his retirement, articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-A24) was issued on the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner for the period between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014. The said articles of charge was the subject matter of Application No.3924/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 12.11.2024 allowed the said Application and quashed the impugned order of initiation of enquiry dated 13.06.2016 and articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 holding that Rule 36 of Transaction of Business Rules are not complied with. Rule 36 of Transaction of Business Rules requires or mandates approval of the Chief Minister for initiation of enquiry against a Group-A senior scale officer that too, cases falling under II Schedule to the said Rules. In other words, the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 issued against the petitioner was by an incompetent authority and was without jurisdiction. - 16 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 20. The Tribunal passed the following order on 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024:

“7. Hence, the application is allowed and the impugned order bearing No.AaaKuKa.155.MSF.2012 dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and produced vide Annexure-A23 and the impugned charge memo bearing No.AaaKuKa.155.MSF.2012 dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and produced vide Annexure-A24 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to comply the requirements of Rule 36 of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 by getting approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister or Council of Ministers. After getting such approval, it is for the respondent authorities to issue the fresh Articles of Charge, if so advised. Time for compliance is four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The Tribunal on setting aside the initiation of enquiry dated 13.06.2016 as well as articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 remitted the matter back to the first respondent to get approval from the Chief Minister or Council of Ministers. However, the Tribunal has not granted liberty to issue fresh articles of charge simpliciter. - 17 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 It has only observed that it is for the respondent authorities to issue the fresh articles of charge, if so advised.

21. In the above circumstances, whether the subsequent articles of charge dated 29.03.2026 could be considered as continuation of earlier articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 and whether as contended by learned Additional Advocate General, the time spent in the Court challenging articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is to be excluded while computing limitation? The answer would be a definite ‘No’, since the earlier enquiry under articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 was held to be without the approval of competent authority and the same was also held to be without jurisdiction, by the Tribunal vide Order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024. Admittedly, the State has accepted the said finding, as the Order dated 12.11.2024 in Application No.3924/2024 has not been challenged by the State before this Court or any other Court for that matter and hence, attained finality. When once the articles of charge dated 13.06.2016 is set - 18 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 aside on the ground of non-approval by the competent authority and the issue having attained finality, the same would not exist in the eyes of law. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD., VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION CSI CINOD

SECRETARIAT, MADRAS reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1, has held that when once the Court quashes a proceedings, the proceedings which is quashed would not exist in the eye of law. Therefore, the subsequent articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 cannot be considered as continuation of earlier enquiry under articles of charge dated 13.06.2016. Further, when the earlier enquiry is by an incompetent authority or without the approval of competent authority, the respondents would not be entitled to exclude the time spent before this Court. If we accept the said contention and permit the State to exclude the time spent in litigation, it would amount to reviving a quashed proceedings, which is impermissible. 23. Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs reads as follows: - 19 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 “214 (2) (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) ………… (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.”

In terms of the above Rule, enquiry could be instituted against a retired Government servant for an event which had taken place within four years from the date of initiation of enquiry i.e., date of articles of charge. The initiation of enquiry under articles of charge dated 29.03.2025 is for the incidents alleged to have taken place between 02.12.2005 to 15.02.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2014. Therefore, the articles of charge issued on 29.03.2025 is totally contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. 24. Statutory Rules prescribe the limitation. Limitation prescribed under statute or rule cannot be extended by the Court. This Court has no power to extend - 20 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 the period of limitation on equitable grounds or on the ground that nature and gravity of charge are very serious. Even if the Court grants liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on quashing of the earlier proceedings, the exercise of such liberty shall be in accordance with law. If the law permits fresh proceedings, then it could be initiated. 25. The articles of charge contains ten charges against the petitioner, which read as follows:

“qÁ.qÁ.qÁ.qÁ. ©.N.©.N.©.N.©.N. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥ÀàºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ¤ªÀÈvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.¤z¤z¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.ÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ.ÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ. ©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀĪÉÊzÀQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ,¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, ©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï©ÃzÀgï EªÀgÀEªÀgÀEªÀgÀEªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ«gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ.¥ÀnÖ. qÁ. ©.N. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà, ¤ªÀÈvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, ©ÃzÀgï DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.12.2005 jAzÀ 15.02.2014 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹zÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À Rjâ, gÁ¸ÁAiÀĤPÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À Rjâ ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼À°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀPÉÌ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-1:1:1:1:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ (¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉUÀ¼À°è - 21 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 ¥ÁgÀzÀ±ÀðPÀvÉ) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1999 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2000 gÀ G¥À®§ÞUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ Rjâ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À.

DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-2:2:2:2:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è£À ¤ÃgÀÄ ±ÀÄ¢ÝÃPÀgÀt ¹ÜgÀAiÀÄAvÀæzÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ¤UÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj WÀlPÀzÀ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÉÆÃVUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸Áܦ¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-3:3:3:3:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ©ÃzÀgï ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è gÉÆÃVUÀ¼À aQvÉìUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÁÝUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ SÁ¸ÀV D¸ÀàvÉæUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ qÀAiÀiÁUÉÆùÖPïUÀ½UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß §qÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀÄ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ ¤gÁPÀj¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-4:4:4:4:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä SÁAiÀÄA ¹§âA¢ EzÁÝUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è£À ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-5:5:5:5:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÉÃvÀ£À ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÉÆÃZÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À - 22 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-6:6:6:6:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ OµÀ¢üUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ PÉ«ÄPÀ¯ïìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß mÉAqÀgï §zÀ¯ÁV PÉÆmÉõÀ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ Rjâ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 2011-12£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀÄgÀÄ mÉAqÀgïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «±ÉõÀvÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà Rjâ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-7:7:7:7:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-7:7:7:7:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ°è zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-8:8:8:8:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ°è Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §¼ÀPÉ DUÀzÉà ¢ÃWÁðªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ MAzÉà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è G½¢zÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ, DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À-9:9:9:9:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¯Áå¨ï ºÁUÀÆ Integrated disease surveillance project £Àr ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ gÀÆ.3,56,278/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.8,00,00/- UÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ - 23 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025

Laboratory instruments C£ÀÄß Rjâ¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. DgÉÆÃ¥À-10:DgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥ÀDgÉÆÃ¥À10:10:10: qÁ: ¸ÀĨsÁ±ï aªÀÄPÉÆÃqÉ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DgÉÆÃ¥À. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ M§â dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV, ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÄPÁw ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ, PÀvÀðªÀå ¥Á®£ÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀæ ¤®ðPÀëpåvÀ£À ªÀ»¹, ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2021 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(1)(i) (ii) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (iii) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀÄwÛÃj.” On perusal of the above charge, it is clear that the charge would not contain any details and no prudent person can understand the charge and reply or defend himself. The first charge relates to purchase of apparatus and furniture in violation of Karnataka Transparency Act and Rules. However, it would not give details of the apparatus or furniture purchased or it would not give details during which period it was purchased. Charge No.6 also relates to - 24 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 purchase and it would also not contain any particulars. Each of the charges are so vague that no prudent person could understand or could reply to such charge. Issuance of such vague charge sheet/memo is deliberate or otherwise is not known.

26. In view of the above findings, we need not examine any other ground urged by the petitioner or respondents. 27. As we have concluded that the articles of charge is hit by limitation prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, the respondents are required to settle pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, if there is no other enquiry pending against the petitioner. Therefore, examining the issues raised in W.P.No.37007/2025 would not arise. 28. For the reasons recorded above, W.P.No.18589/2026 deserves to be allowed and consequently, W.P.No.37007/2025 deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following: - 25 - WP No. 18589 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37007 of 2025 ORDER i) W.P.No.18589/2026 is allowed. ii) Order dated 01.06.2026 in Application No.3923/2025 is set aside and consequently, articles of charge bearing No.DPÀÄPÀ 59 JAJ¸ïJ¥sï 2025 dated 29.03.2025 and all other further proceedings are quashed. iii) W.P.No.37007/2025 stands dismissed. iv) The respondents are given three months time to comply with the direction dated 11.02.2025 in Application No.3926/2024 passed by the Tribunal, if no other enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE NC CT:bms