<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the departmental enquiry proceedings against a retired sheristadar finding that the article of charge was barred by the limitation period prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. </p><p>The petitioner N Hanumantha contended that the departmental enquiry/proceeding was instituted by issuing the chargesheet on June 27, 2023 in respect of an event which took place in the year 2016.</p><p>On May 22, 2020, the complaint was filed before the Lokayukta in connection with the proceedings of change of khata carried out in 2016.</p><p>The complainant K M Shankar of Karadakere Village in Maddur taluk in Mandya district alleged that one of his brothers, K M Nagesh had paid Rs 3.50 lakh to the Revenue Department officials to execute illegal khata transfer. </p><p>The land (12-15 acres) stood in the name of the complainant’s father who had seven sons and eight daughters.</p><p>Hanumantha, who served as sheristadar at the Deputy Commissioner’s office, retired from service on July 31, 2022, while the Lokayukta issued articles of charge on June 27, 2023. </p>.Karnataka HC issues notice to state govt alleging discriminatory allocation of funds.<p>Challenging the disciplinary proceedings, Hanumantha contended that charges could not have been issued in 2023 for an alleged event that took place in 2016.</p><p>On the other hand, the advocate appearing for the Lokayukta submitted that a partition suit was filed and a complaint was filed after the final decree was passed in the appeal. It was further submitted that the inquiry was conducted within a period of four years from the date of the incident.</p><p>After examining KCSR Rules 214(2)(b) on limitation and Rule-214(6)(a) on definition of institution of disciplinary proceedings, the division bench noted that the date of charge sheet in the present case, July 2023 is the date for institution of the departmental proceedings and not be the date of the complaint.</p><p>“In any view of the matter, it cannot be denied that the event occurred during the year 2016 and the institution of departmental proceedings by issuing the charge sheet is on 27.06.2023. Considering the extracted provisions of Rule 214 (2)(b) of the KCSRs, we are of the considered view that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners are barred by limitation as prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b) and therefore, the departmental proceedings are incompetent and void. Thus, we set aside the departmental proceedings along with the chargesheet..,” the bench said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the departmental enquiry proceedings against a retired sheristadar finding that the article of charge was barred by the limitation period prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. </p><p>The petitioner N Hanumantha contended that the departmental enquiry/proceeding was instituted by issuing the chargesheet on June 27, 2023 in respect of an event which took place in the year 2016.</p><p>On May 22, 2020, the complaint was filed before the Lokayukta in connection with the proceedings of change of khata carried out in 2016.</p><p>The complainant K M Shankar of Karadakere Village in Maddur taluk in Mandya district alleged that one of his brothers, K M Nagesh had paid Rs 3.50 lakh to the Revenue Department officials to execute illegal khata transfer. </p><p>The land (12-15 acres) stood in the name of the complainant’s father who had seven sons and eight daughters.</p><p>Hanumantha, who served as sheristadar at the Deputy Commissioner’s office, retired from service on July 31, 2022, while the Lokayukta issued articles of charge on June 27, 2023. </p>.Karnataka HC issues notice to state govt alleging discriminatory allocation of funds.<p>Challenging the disciplinary proceedings, Hanumantha contended that charges could not have been issued in 2023 for an alleged event that took place in 2016.</p><p>On the other hand, the advocate appearing for the Lokayukta submitted that a partition suit was filed and a complaint was filed after the final decree was passed in the appeal. It was further submitted that the inquiry was conducted within a period of four years from the date of the incident.</p><p>After examining KCSR Rules 214(2)(b) on limitation and Rule-214(6)(a) on definition of institution of disciplinary proceedings, the division bench noted that the date of charge sheet in the present case, July 2023 is the date for institution of the departmental proceedings and not be the date of the complaint.</p><p>“In any view of the matter, it cannot be denied that the event occurred during the year 2016 and the institution of departmental proceedings by issuing the charge sheet is on 27.06.2023. Considering the extracted provisions of Rule 214 (2)(b) of the KCSRs, we are of the considered view that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners are barred by limitation as prescribed under Rule 214(2)(b) and therefore, the departmental proceedings are incompetent and void. Thus, we set aside the departmental proceedings along with the chargesheet..,” the bench said.</p>