A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India examined whether Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 (KCSR) can bar or stifle criminal prosecutions against a retired public servant for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and whether absence of sanction under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 19, PC Act required quashing. The respondent, a former Chief Engineer, BBMP (West), had granted technical sanction on 26 March 2009 for road asphalting; an FIR dated 4 November 2011 led to a chargesheet on 3 June 2016, after his retirement on 31 May 2013. The High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings invoking Rule 214(3) & 214(6)(b), KCSR and for want of sanction. The Supreme Court (Dipankar Datta & Manmohan, JJ.) held that Rule 214 is confined to pensionary consequences and does not curtail police investigation or court cognisance under the CrPC; hence delay beyond the four‑year period in Rule 214 could not scuttle prosecution. On sanction, the Court upheld quashing vis‑à‑vis IPC offences for absence of Section 197 CrPC sanction, but restored proceedings under the PC Act, clarifying that Section 19 PC Act (pre‑2018 amendment) required sanction only for serving public servants at the time of cognisance; a retiree enjoys no such protection. The appeals were partly allowed, restoring prosecution for Section 13(1)(c)/(d) read with Section 13(2), PC Act, with liberty to proceed for IPC offences upon obtaining sanction under the repealed CrPC, preserved by Section 531, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Keywords: Rule 214 KCSR; Section 197 CrPC; Section 19 PC Act; cognisance; quashing of criminal proceedings

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation springs from a BBMP works episode in which the respondent, as Chief Engineer (West) from 15 February 2008 to 15 January 2011, issued technical sanction on 26 March 2009. A complaint was lodged on 3 November 2011 regarding execution irregularities, followed by an FIR on 4 November 2011 against unknown persons under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477‑A, 120‑B IPC and Section 23 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. He retired on 31 May 2013; a chargesheet was filed on 3 June 2016 accusing him of collusion to adopt NH SR rates instead of PWD SR rates, allegedly causing loss exceeding ₹22.40 lakh. The High Court quashed proceedings invoking Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b), KCSR, and held Section 197(1) CrPC sanction necessary for IPC offences, while accepting that Section 19 PC Act was inapplicable as the respondent had retired. The Supreme Court crystallised the issues: whether Rule 214 KCSR can stifle criminal prosecution, and whether quashing could be sustained on limitation and sanction. It re‑examined Rule 214 text and purpose within Part IV, Chapter XV (Ordinary Pension), distinguished its pensionary ambit from CrPC Chapters XII & XIV on investigation and cognisance, and tested the High Court’s approach against authorities including State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath (1989) 1 SCC 321, A. Srinivasulu v. State of T.N. (2023) 13 SCC 705, and Karnataka High Court rulings in Mohamed Haneef (1985 SCC OnLine Kar 203), A.K. Chowdekar (2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10754), and State of Karnataka v. P. Giridhar Kudva (2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5723).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The factual matrix records the respondent’s role as Chief Engineer, BBMP (West) with authority to grant technical sanctions for works between ₹30 lakh and ₹60 lakh during 15 February 2008 to 15 January 2011. On 26 March 2009, he sanctioned asphalt works on main roads and cross roads. On 3 November 2011, the BBMP Commissioner lodged a complaint alleging execution irregularities without naming any accused. On 4 November 2011, FIR No. 4/2011 was registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477‑A and 120‑B IPC and Section 23 of the KTPP Act, 1999. The respondent retired on 31 May 2013. The CID filed a chargesheet on 3 June 2016 in Crime No. 4/2011 (Special C.C. No. 252/2016) arraigning him as Accused No. 6 for offences under Sections 120‑B, 409, 465, 468, 477 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The gravamen is that he allegedly colluded with other BBMP officials and a contractor to apply NH SR rates rather than the mandated PWD SR rates for black‑topping, allegedly inflating the cost and misusing an additional sum exceeding ₹22.40 lakh, causing loss to the exchequer. On these facts, the respondent sought quashing of Special C.C. Nos. 252/2016, 273/2016 and 253/2016 by invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution with Section 482 CrPC. The High Court accepted the plea on limitation under Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b) KCSR and on absence of sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC for IPC offences.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Does Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 operate to bar or stifle criminal prosecution under the IPC or the PC Act against a retired public servant when the chargesheet is filed beyond four years from the alleged event?
ii. Is prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory for IPC offences against a retired public servant, and what is the impact of absence of sanction at the stage of cognisance?
iii. Does Section 19, PC Act (pre‑2018 amendment) require sanction for prosecuting a retired public servant when cognisance is taken after his retirement?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Rule 214(3), KCSR does not bar criminal prosecution of retired public servants; it is a pensionary rule in Part IV, Chapter XV (Ordinary Pension) and cannot interfere with investigation under Chapter XII CrPC or cognisance under Chapter XIV CrPC. Reliance was placed on Mohamed Haneef v. Thirthahalli Police, 1985 SCC OnLine Kar 203, which clarifies that the four‑year barrier in Rule 214 applies only to proceedings under the rule for withholding/withdrawing pension, not to general criminal trials; the judgment explains that the phrase “such judicial proceeding” in Rule 214 is confined to proceedings contemplated by Rule 214 and cannot be construed to bar ordinary criminal prosecutions. The appellants also invoked A.K. Chowdekar v. State of Karnataka, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10754, holding that Rule 214(3) KCSR concerns civil proceedings and does not bar initiation of criminal action under the IPC. The argument was fortified by State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, (1989) 1 SCC 321, which read down similar service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution to hold that “a rule laying an embargo on prosecution cannot be framed as a condition of service,” because prosecution policy cannot be part of conditions of service. The appellant thus urged that the High Court erred in treating Rule 214 as a limitation against prosecution and in quashing proceedings at the threshold.

ii. The counsels further argued that the plea about Section 197 CrPC sanction ordinarily arises at the trial court stage when cognisance is taken, and that, in any event, given that the chargesheet was filed after retirement, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not a precondition for filing the police report. As to PC Act offences, Section 19 PC Act (prior to 26 July 2018) required sanction only when the accused was a public servant in office at the time of cognisance, hence a retired officer did not enjoy the Section 19 shield; A. Srinivasulu v. State of T.N., (2023) 13 SCC 705 was cited to reiterate this temporal distinction and to show that where the accused had retired long before cognisance, no prior Section 19 sanction was necessary. Accordingly, quashing qua PC Act counts on sanction was said to be misconceived.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b), KCSR places an express four‑year bar on institution of “judicial proceedings” when such proceedings are not instituted during service or re‑employment; they contended that “judicial proceedings” must be deemed instituted on the date of cognisance on the police report, rendering the 2016 chargesheet and cognisance time‑barred for events of 2009–2010. Therefore, the High Court correctly concluded that cognisance was “without authority of law” and that the writ petitions deserved allowance to prevent abuse of process. The respondent also argued that prior sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting IPC offences against “any person who is or was a public servant not removable without prior sanction,” and that the absence of such sanction vitiated cognisance qua IPC counts. Finally, it was urged that the High Court’s approach was consistent with Rule 214’s text, which sets the institution date by Rule 214(6)(b) and renders FIR date irrelevant.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Rule 214, Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958—text extracted and analysed (Part IV, Chapter XV—Ordinary Pension).
ii. Sections 197 & 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—protection to public servants; inherent powers.
iii. Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) and Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—substantive corruption offences; sanction requirement (pre‑2018).
iv. Section 531, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—repeal of CrPC with saving for pending proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court read Rule 214 KCSR in extenso and anchored its analysis in text, context, and policy. It held that Rule 214 operates in a distinct pensionary domain, authorising withholding or withdrawal of pension or recovery upon a finding of grave misconduct or negligence in departmental or judicial proceedings; the four‑year timeline in Rule 214(3) regulates when such departmental/judicial proceedings may be instituted for pensionary consequences, and the deeming clause in Rule 214(6)(b) fixes the institution date for those pensionary purposes. The Court emphasised that nothing in Rule 214 whittles down the investigative powers under Part XII CrPC or the Magistrate’s cognisance under Chapter XIV CrPC. It declared that the High Court erred in using Rule 214 to nip criminal prosecution in the bud merely because the chargesheet and cognisance post‑dated the four‑year period, for such a reading puts a pension rule in collision with general criminal law—a construction the text and policy do not support. On sanction, the Court reaffirmed that Section 197 CrPC shields both serving and retired public servants for IPC offences allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in official duty; the admitted absence of Section 197 sanction justified quashing qua IPC counts. However, it corrected the High Court on PC Act counts by applying A. Srinivasulu and clarifying that Section 19 PC Act (pre‑2018) required sanction only when the accused was in office at the time of cognisance; a retiree enjoys no such protection. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the quashing to the extent of PC Act offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), and restored those proceedings. It also recorded that though CrPC stands repealed by Section 531 BNSS 2023, pending matters continue under the repealed law, and the State has liberty to prosecute for IPC offences upon obtaining Section 197 CrPC sanction per the saved regime.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio turns on the limited reach of Rule 214 KCSR and the temporal ambit of Section 19 PC Act (pre‑2018). First, Rule 214 is a pension rule; its timelines cannot be read to curtail the CrPC’s scheme for investigation and cognisance. The Court harmonised text and context, noting that Rule 214(1) empowers only withholding/withdrawing pension or recovering pecuniary loss upon a finding of misconduct; Rule 214(3) and Rule 214(6) prescribe when such departmental or judicial proceedings may be instituted for that limited purpose. Therefore, “by any rule of construction” Rule 214 has no application to stifle criminal proceedings or to nip them in the bud because the pensionary timelines were missed. This construction preserves the CrPC architecture and avoids absurd outcomes whereby a pension rule would immunise offenders who delay detection—an outcome repugnant to public policy and consistent with Kailash Nath reading down similar service rules under Article 309. Secondly, as to sanction, the Court held that Section 197 CrPC applied to IPC offences notwithstanding retirement, validating the High Court’s quash qua IPC counts. But for PC Act offences, the Srinivasulu exposition governs: before Act 16 of 2018, Section 19(1)(a) mandated sanction only for those in office at cognisance; a retiree did not require sanction. Since the respondent had retired on 31 May 2012 and cognisance was on 3 June 2016, no Section 19 sanction was needed, making the High Court’s quash on that score erroneous.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court’s closing observations about the CrPC repeal by BNSS 2023 and continuation of pending proceedings serve as important guidance. While deciding only the immediate controversy, the Court clarified that Section 531, BNSS 2023 saves pending matters under the repealed CrPC, and consequently, if the State intends to proceed for IPC offences, it must secure sanction according to the repealed law, and such liberty was expressly reserved. Additionally, the Court underscored the adjudicatory discipline that questions of sanction under Section 197 CrPC are ordinarily to be agitated before the trial court at the cognisance stage, reinforcing procedural propriety though the appeals here arose from writ proceedings. The Court also remarked—administratively—that the SLPs were registered as civil petitions though the controversy pertained to quashing under penal laws, and directed the Registry to consider appropriate renumbering as criminal petitions. These remarks, while not essential to the decision on Rule 214 and Section 19, clarify the procedural and transitional landscape and help avoid misapplications of BNSS to legacy CrPC proceedings, and they signal the importance of proper docketing for appeals arising on the criminal side.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Rule 214 KCSR is a pensionary provision; do not construe its four‑year timeline as a bar to criminal investigation or cognisance under the CrPC. Use Rule 214 only for withholding/withdrawing pension or recovery of loss upon proof of misconduct.
ii. In cases alleging offences under the IPC and the PC Act, courts must keep pension rules distinct from general criminal law. The CrPC framework in Chapters XII & XIV remains intact; pension rules cannot “whittle down” investigative or cognisance powers.
iii. For IPC offences against public servants (serving or retired), prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required where the act complained of is connected with official duty; absence of such sanction at cognisance can justify quashing qua IPC counts.
iv. For PC Act offences prior to 26 July 2018, Section 19 PC Act required sanction only if the accused was in service at the time of cognisance; no sanction is needed if the accused had retired before cognisance. Apply A. Srinivasulu, (2023) 13 SCC 705.
v. Post‑BNSS 2023, by virtue of Section 531, pending proceedings continue under the repealed CrPC; where the State wishes to proceed on IPC counts, it must obtain sanction per CrPC as saved.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision refines the interface between service jurisprudence and criminal process. By ring‑fencing Rule 214 KCSR to pensionary consequences, the Court prevents a conflation that could inadvertently immunise misconduct detected late, particularly in public works where audit trails often mature slowly. The ratio aligns with Kailash Nath in holding that rules under Article 309 cannot create an embargo on prosecution; prosecution policy is not a condition of service. The ruling also harmonises sanction law: it reaffirms the protective canopy of Section 197 CrPC for IPC charges while rightly withdrawing the Section 19 PC Act shield where cognisance follows retirement, consistent with Srinivasulu. Practically, investigating agencies and trial courts receive a clear roadmap: pursue PC Act offences against retirees without waiting for sanction (for pre‑2018 scenarios), and for IPC offences, ensure Section 197 compliance if official‑duty linkage exists. For the State, the BNSS 2023 transition clause ensures continuity; sanction for IPC may still be sought under the CrPC regime for legacy matters. For public administration, the verdict signals that pension rules serve fiscal/public interest in securing recovery and conditioning pension on good conduct; they are not designed to truncate the criminal law. The partial allowance balances accountability with procedural safeguards: it restores PC Act prosecution while respecting Section 197 for IPC. This calibrated approach should deter attempts to weaponise pension rules to defeat anti‑corruption prosecutions, and it will likely guide High Courts when faced with Rule 214-type arguments in future writs for quashing.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 911; (1989) 1 SCC 321—reading down service rules under Article 309 to avoid creating embargo on prosecution; relied upon by the Court in approving the non‑application of Rule 214 to criminal prosecutions.
ii. A. Srinivasulu v. State of T.N., [2023] 10 SCR 11; (2023) 13 SCC 705—clarifies that Section 19(1)(a) PC Act (pre‑2018) required sanction only for public servants in service at cognisance; applied to hold that a retiree needs no sanction.
iii. Mohamed Haneef v. Thirthahalli Police, 1985 SCC OnLine Kar 203—interprets Rule 214 proviso (c) as confined to pensionary proceedings; not a bar to ordinary criminal prosecutions.
iv. A.K. Chowdekar v. State of Karnataka, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10754—holds Rule 214(3) KCSR concerns civil proceedings and does not bar criminal action under IPC.
v. State of Karnataka v. P. Giridhar Kudva, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5723—applies Kailash Nath to permit initiation of criminal prosecution despite Rule 214 timelines.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 197 & 482; Chapters XII & XIV (investigation and cognisance).
ii. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 19 (pre‑2018).
iii. Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958—Rule 214 (withholding/withdrawing pension; four‑year bar for pension‑linked proceedings; institution date under Rule 214(6)(b)).
iv. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 531 (repeal of CrPC; saving of pending proceedings).