Service-rule limits cannot grant immunity from corruption prosecution, though stale proceedings may still be quashed.

Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules was read down in light of Article 309 so it could not create an absolute bar against criminal prosecution for offences committed during service. The Court stated that prosecution for corruption or other grave misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC is not a mere service condition, and the rule could not confer immunity; however, in the factual setting, the allegations were stale, sanction had been declined for similarly placed officers, and the chargesheet and consequential proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules bars criminal prosecution of retired Government servants after the prescribed period and whether the chargesheet and cognizance order could be quashed on that basis.

Analysis: The Rule was examined in the light of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the law on pensionary rules. A provision in service rules cannot create an absolute embargo on prosecution for offences committed during service, because prosecution for grave misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not a mere condition of service. The Court applied the principle that such a rule must be read down so that it does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution. It also noted that the allegations related to old incidents, that sanction was declined in respect of similarly placed officers, and that the proceedings had become stale in the factual setting of the case.

Conclusion: Rule 214(3) did not bar the criminal proceedings, but the petitions were allowed and the chargesheet and consequential proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-rule limitation on judicial proceedings cannot be construed as granting an absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for corruption or other grave offences committed during service.

---