Holding

Rule 214 cannot be used to suppress criminal prosecution, and while lack of sanction under Section 197 justifies quashing IPC charges, the PC Act charges must proceed because the retired officer is not protected by Section 19.

Summary

The State of Karnataka challenged the Karnataka High Court’s order that quashed criminal proceedings against former BBMP Chief Engineer B.T. Ramesh on the grounds that the chargesheet was filed more than four years after the alleged misconduct and that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was obtained. Ramesh had been accused of colluding to award inflated rates for road works, causing a loss of over Rs.22 lakh, with the FIR lodged in 2011 and the chargesheet filed in 2016, after his retirement in 2012. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 could be invoked to bar criminal prosecution and whether the lack of sanction under Section 197 warranted quashing of the case. It held that Rule 214 pertains only to pension matters and cannot be used to stifle criminal proceedings, and that the High Court was correct to quash the IPC‑related charges for lack of sanction but erred in quashing the PC Act charges because Ramesh was not protected by Section 19 of the PC Act after retirement. Consequently, the Court set aside the quashing of the PC Act offences and restored the proceedings, while maintaining the quash of the IPC offences pending sanction. The appeals were therefore allowed in part.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 can be applied to bar or quash criminal proceedings under the IPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Whether Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies to a retired public servant when cognizance is taken after retirement.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 531
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197, s. 482
Constitution of India
Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958s. 214
Karnataka Civil Services (Second Amendment) Rules, 1985
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 19

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of sanction; and whether r.214 of the Karnataka Civil any application to stifle criminal proceedings for offences punishable under the IPC or the PC Act or any analogous law. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.197, 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 – r.214

Subjects

QuashingCriminal proceedingsPublic servantAbuse of official positionSanctionRetired public servantSection 197 CrPCSection 19 PC ActRule 214Interpretation of statutesLoss to public exchequerCognizance

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 202 : 2025 INSC 840

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
v.
B.T. Ramesh & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9463-9465 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the
criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having
been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged
incident and lack of sanction; and whether r.214 of the Karnataka
Civil Services Rules, 1958 has any application to stifle criminal
proceedings for offences punishable under the IPC or the PC Act
or any analogous law.

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.197, 482 – Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 – Karnataka Civil Services Rules,
1958 – r.214 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Sanction
for prosecution – Application of r.214 to stifle criminal
proceedings under IPC or PC Act – Respondent-chief engineer
in the government department allegedly abused his official
position, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer – FIR
lodged for offences punishable under IPC and PC Act – Filing
of chargesheet – High Court quashed criminal proceedings
against the respondent on the grounds that chargesheet was
filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident
and lack of sanction – Correctness:
Held: r.214, by any rule of construction, has no application to
suppress pending criminal proceedings in the early stage or for
stifling such proceedings after cognisance of offence has been taken
for no better reason than that the timelines embodied therein have
not been adhered to – High Court quashed the proceedings against
the respondent by referring to r.214 which, had no application –
Ground that the chargesheet having been filed more than four years
after the date of the alleged incident for quashing the proceedings

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 203

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

unsustainable – As regards, sanction u/s.197, High Court erred in
quashing the proceedings qua the offences under the PC Act as
it did not appreciate that s.19 thereof, prior to its amendment in
2018, applied only to public servants who were in office at the time
of taking of cognisance of offence – Thus, since the respondent
retired in 2012 and the cognisance of the offence was taken, four
years after his retirement, he was not entitled to the protection
u/s.19 PC Act – Such protection would have been available to him
only if cognisance were taken while he was still in service – High
Court erred in quashing the proceedings on the first ground that
chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date
of the alleged incident, completely; and on the second ground of
lack of sanction, partly –Impugned order, quashing the proceedings
for the offences punishable u/s.13(1)(c) &(d) rw s.13(2) PC Act
set aside – Proceedings against respondent restored and may
continue for such offences. [Paras 16-25]
Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 – r.214 – Withholding or
withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence – Scope
of r.214 – Explained. [Paras 16-17]

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 911 : (1989)
1 SCC 321; A. Srinivasulu v. State of T.N. [2023] 10 SCR 11 :
(2023) 13 SCC 705 – referred to.
Mohamed Haneef v. Thirthahalli Police, 1985 SCC OnLine Kar
203; A.K. Chowdekar v State of Karnataka, 2013 SCC OnLine
Kar 10754; State of Karnataka v. P. Giridhar Kudva, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 5723 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958; Constitution of India;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Karnataka Civil Services
(Second Amendment) Rules, 1985.

List of Keywords
Quashing; Quashing the criminal proceedings; Public servant;
Abused official positions; Sanction; Sanction for prosecution
Discharge of official duties; Retired public servants; Lack of
204 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

sanction; Stifle criminal proceedings; Interpretation of statutes;
Rule of construction; Chargesheet; Loss to the public exchequer;
Cognisance.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9463-9465
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP Nos. 61305, 61306 and 61307
of 2016

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, Ajay Desai, Revanta
Solanki.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Advs., Mrigank
Prabhakar, Ms. Ishita Choudhary, Shourya Dasgupta, Ms. Aditi
Gupta, Siddharth Sahu, Suraj Kaushik, M/s. Nuli & Nuli.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals by the State of Karnataka register a challenge
to the common judgment and order dated 5th July, 20221 of the
High Court of Karnataka2 in three Writ Petitions3 filed by the 1st
respondent – B.T. Ramesh4 under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19735. Vide the impugned order, the three writ petitions were allowed

1 impugned order
2 High Court
3 W.P. No.61305/2016 (GM-RES) c/w W.P. No.61306 of 2016 c/w W.P. No.61307/2016
4 Ramesh
5 Cr. PC
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 205

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

with the consequence that proceedings against Ramesh, in three
complaint cases6, stood quashed.
3. The occasion for filing three separate Writ Petitions before the High
Court arose as three separate criminal proceedings (Special C.C.
Nos. 252, 273 and 253 of 2016) were pending against Ramesh. In
all such proceedings, a common chargesheet dated 3rd June, 2016
was filed, wherein Ramesh was arraigned as one of several accused.
4. Facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present appeals
are these:
a. From 15th February, 2008 to 15th January, 2011, Ramesh was
working as Chief Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike7 (West) and had the power to grant technical sanction
for works estimated between 30 lakh and 60 lakh.
b. On 26th March, 2009, Ramesh had granted technical sanction
for asphalting of certain main roads and cross roads.
c. On 3rd November, 2011, the 2nd respondent8 lodged a complaint
alleging irregularities in execution of works by the office of the
BBMP. No one was named in this complaint as an accused.
d. Next day, on 4th November, 2011, an FIR was registered against
unknown persons on the basis of the said complaint under FIR
number 4/2011 under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471,
477(a) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18609 and Section
23 of Karnataka Transparency Public Procurement Act, 1999.
e. On 31st May, 2013, Ramesh retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation.
f. More than three years after such retirement and almost four
years and seven months after the lodging of the complaint, Crime
Investigation Department (CID) filed a chargesheet in Crime No.
4/2011 (Special C.C. No. 252/2016) on 3rd June, 2016, wherein
Ramesh figured as accused no. 6, under Sections 120(B), 409,

6 Special C.C. No. 252/2016, 253/2016 & 273/2016
7 BBMP
8 The Commissioner, BBMP, N R Square, Bangalore
9 IPC
206 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

465, 468, 477 of the IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c) &(d) and 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198810.
g. As per the chargesheet, Ramesh while serving as the Chief
Engineer of BBMP at the relevant time was alleged to have
colluded with the co-accused (other officer of BBMP and the
contractor) in abusing his official position for adopting NH SR
rates instead of the prescribed PWD SR rates for black-topping
items. This resulted in the misuse of an additional sum in excess
of Rs.22 lakh 40 thousand, thereby causing loss to the public
exchequer.
h. Praying for quashing of the proceedings in Special C.C. Nos.
252, 273 and 253 of 2016, Ramesh presented the three Writ
Petitions before the High Court on which the impugned order
was passed.
5. Before the High Court, Ramesh advanced three-fold submissions:
(i) for offences allegedly having taken place in 2009-2010, the
chargesheet was filed on 3rd June, 2016, more than seven years
after the alleged incident. He argued that this delay renders the
proceedings barred under Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services
Rules, 195811, which prescribes a limitation period of four years
for initiation of judicial proceedings, calculated from the date on
which the alleged misconduct or offence took place; (ii) as per rule
214(6)(b) of the KCS Rules, 1958, “judicial proceeding”, in respect
of a criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to have commenced on
the date the Magistrate takes cognisance on the chargesheet and
the date of filing of the FIR is irrelevant; and (iii) no sanction under
section 197, Cr. PC was obtained for prosecution of Ramesh for
offences allegedly committed by him in discharge of his official duties.
6. Rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the State submitted: (i) the
proceedings were initiated within two years from the date of alleged
incident as the FIR was registered in 2011; and (ii) since the
chargesheet was filed after retirement of Ramesh, there was no
need to obtain sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC.
7. Accepting the arguments advanced by Ramesh, the High Court
quashed the proceedings. It was inter alia held that:

10 PC Act
11 KCS Rules, 1958
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 207

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

“8. Rule 214(3) and Sub-Rule-(6)(b) of the Rules, specifies
that no judicial proceedings, 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.
9. In the present case, the alleged offence of misappropriation
has taken place during the year 2009- 2010. Though FIR
was lodged in the year 2011 against the unknown persons,
the charge sheet was submitted on 03.06.2016, after expiry
of four years from the date of cause of action arose. Hence,
the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge is
contrary to the Rule 214(3) and Sub-Rule-6 of the Rules
and same is held to be one without authority of law.
10. The charge sheet has been filed for the offences
punishable under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act and also offences under IPC though there is no
requirement of obtaining prior sanction for prosecuting
petitioner-accused No.6 for the offences punishable under
the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, since
he had retired from service as on the date of charge
sheet was filed. Section 197(1) specifies that no Court
shall take cognizance for the offences punishable under
the provisions of IPC against any person who is or was
Judge as Magistrate or public servant not removable
from his office without the previous sanction. Hence, the
police before submitting the charge sheet for the offences
punishable under IPC were required to obtain sanction
as specified under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. and in the
absence of grant of sanction as specified under Section
197(1) of Cr.P.C, the cognizance taken by the learned
Sessions Judge insofar as it relates to the offences
punishable under the provisions of IPC is held to be one
without authority of law.
11. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view
that continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioner- accused No.6 will be an abuse of process of
law and accordingly, I pass the following:
208 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ORDER
i. Writ petitions are allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.C.
No.252/2016, Spl.C.C. No.273/2016 and
Spl.C.C. No.253/2016 in WP Nos.61305/2016,
61306/2016 and 61307/2016 respectively
pending on the file of 77th Addl. City Civil Judge
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru insofar as it
relates to accused No.6 is hereby quashed.”
8. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment on the following
grounds:
a. The plea regarding requirement of sanction under Section 197,
Cr. PC is ordinarily to be raised before the Trial Court at the
stage of taking cognisance;
b. Rule 214(3) of KCS Rules, 1958 does not bar criminal
proceedings against retired public servants. In support of this
contention, reference was made to two decisions of the High
Court.
i. First, in Mohamed Haneef v. Thirthahalli Police12, the High
Court, while interpreting proviso (c) of Rule 214 of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Second Amendment) Rules, 1985 [which is pari
materia with Rule 214(3) of the KCS Rules, 1958] held that:
“13. A close examination of the provisions contained
in Rules 213 and 214 would reveal that Rule 213 is
based upon the concept that future good conduct
shall be an implied condition of every grant of
pension and appropriate action could be taken
against the pensioner respecting the payment of
pension, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious
crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct during
the period, the pensioner receives pension without
any period of limitation for being convicted of a
serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct;

12 1985 SCC OnLine Kar 203
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 209

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

whereas Rule 214 can be invoked and action be
taken against a pensioner if in any departmental or
judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence during the period
of his service including service rendered upon re-
employment after retirement, subject to the conditions
and limitations stipulated therein for instituting
departmental or judicial proceedings. In other words,
action could be taken under Rule 213 respecting the
future acts and conduct of a pensioner resulting in
the conviction of a serious crime or guilty of grave
misconduct after his retirement; whereas Rule 214
applies in respect of the acts and conduct of the
pensioner while he was in service resulting in a finding
either in departmental or judicial proceeding that he
is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. That is
why no period of limitation is prescribed in respect
of the acts and conduct of a pensioner resulting in
a conviction of a serious crime or finding of guilty of
grave misconduct as they relate to future acts and
conduct after the pensioner retired from service and
period of limitation has been prescribed respecting
departmental as well as judicial proceedings under
Rule 214 because it applies to past acts and conduct
of the pensioner while he was in service. Both clause
(b) as well as clause (c) of the proviso to Rule 214
prescribe a period of four years for instituting a
departmental or judicial proceeding in respect of any
event in the case of former or any event or cause of
action from the date of its taking place or arising in
the case of latter if no such departmental or judicial
proceeding was instituted while the officer was in
service whether before his retirement or during his re-
employment. This period of limitation does not apply
to a case where departmental or judicial proceeding
had been initiated in respect of an employee while he
was in service. It is abundantly clear that clause (c)
of the proviso to Rule 214 governs only the judicial
proceedings referred to in Rule 214. This is clear
from the terms ‘such judicial proceeding’ thereby
210 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

meaning judicial proceeding referred to in Rule 214
and not other judicial proceedings including criminal
proceedings before any Criminal Court dealing with
general criminal law. The prohibition against the
institution of a judicial proceedings in respect of a
cause of action which arose or an event which took
place more than 4 years before such institution as
contained in clause (c) or against the institution of a
departmental enquiry in respect of any event which
took place more than 4 years before such institution
as stipulated under clause (b) of the proviso is only
for the purpose of exercising the powers under Rule
214 and not for any other purpose. The period of
limitation provided in clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso
appears to be intended to prevent harassment, by
instituting either departmental or judicial proceedings
in respect of a stale or remote event or cause of
action which arose more than 4 years before such
institution after the officer has retired. It seems to me
that the prohibitory words in clause (c) relied upon
by Sri Desai cannot be construed as a bar against
criminal prosecutions in general.”
(emphasis laid by the appellant)

Pithily, the High Court held that this limitation under Rule 214
applies only to proceedings under Rule 214 and not to general
criminal prosecutions, which can proceed under regular criminal
law without being affected by this rule.
ii. Secondly, in A.K. Chowdekar v State of Karnataka13, the
High Court, while dealing with Rule 214(3) of the KCS Rules,
1958, observed that:
“9. The words ‘judicial proceedings’ appearing in
sub-rule (3) of Rule 214 of (sic) 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

13 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10754
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 211

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

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 Penal Code, 1860.
10. 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
Penal Code, 1860. …”
(emphasis laid by the appellant)

c. Rules enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot
bar criminal prosecution. In support of the same, reliance was
placed on State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath14:
“7. In the normal course what falls within the purview
of the term ‘conditions of service’ may be classified
as salary or wages including subsistence allowance
during suspension, the periodical increments, pay
scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation,
promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service,
compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation,
pension, changing the age of superannuation,
deputation and disciplinary proceedings. Whether
or not a Government servant should be prosecuted
for an offence committed by him obviously cannot
be treated to be something pertaining to conditions
of service. Making a provision that a Government
servant, even if he is guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence which constitutes an offence punishable
either under the Penal Code or Prevention of
Corruption Act or an analogous law should be
granted immunity from such prosecution after the
lapse of a particular period so as to provide incentive

14 (1989) 1 SCC 321
212 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for efficient work would not only be against public
policy but would also be counter-productive. It is
likely to be an incentive not for efficient work but for
committing offences including embezzlement and
misappropriation by some of them at the fag end of
their tenure of service and making an effort that the
offence is not detected within the period prescribed
for launching prosecution or manipulating delay in the
matter of launching prosecution. Further, instances
are not wanting where a Government servant may
escape prosecution at the initial stage for want of
evidence but during the course of prosecution of
some other person evidence may be led or material
may be produced which establishes complicity and
guilt of such Government servant. By that time
period prescribed, if any, for launching prosecution
may have expired and in that event on account of
such period having expired the Government servant
concerned would succeed in avoiding prosecution
even though there may be sufficient evidence of
an offence having been committed by him. Such
a situation, in our opinion, cannot be created by
framing a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution
laying down an embargo on prosecution as a
condition of service.”
(emphasis laid by the appellant)

d. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Kailash Nath (supra),
the High Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. P. Giridhar
Kudva15 held as follows:
“10. In that view of the matter, issuance of charge
sheet for conducting disciplinary proceedings, though
belated, it is proper and should not be interfered with.
We are also of the opinion that when the said officer
accepted that he has deliberately given false date of
birth in his reply dated 17.2.2006, much earlier to his

15 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5723
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 213

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

retirement on the basis of false date of birth issued
by him, it is a fit case where criminal prosecution is
required to be initiated. In fact, though Rule 214(3)
and (6) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, initially
was an obstacle for initiating proceedings against a
retired officer, the Apex Court in the matter of State
of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, (1989) 1 SCC 321 :
AIR 1989 SC 558 has read down the similar Rule
which was in Punjab Civil Services and has held
that the same would not come in the way of holding
criminal prosecution. Therefore, in the present case
also, while considering the writ petition filed by the
petitioner-State, we set aside not only the order
passed by the Tribunal, but also reserve liberty to the
petitioner-State herein to initiate criminal prosecution
against respondent-delinquent officer for gross abuse
of process of law, as well as for making deliberate
false declaration of his date of birth to secure illegal
benefit to continue in service for seven years beyond
the date on which he was required to superannuate
and consequently causing financial loss to the State.”
(emphasis laid by the appellant)

9. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for
Ramesh, asserted that the impugned order is well reasoned and
does not require any interference. Pro argumento, he submitted:
a. The High Court rightly held that the police report (chargesheet)
was filed after the limitation period of four years as provided
under Rule 214(3) read with sub-Rule (6)(b) of Rule 214 of the
KCS Rules, 1958.
b. Judicial proceedings cannot be deemed to have commenced
from the date of the FIR. As per sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 214 of the
KCS Rules, 1958, the date of institution of judicial proceedings
is considered to be the date on which the Magistrate takes
cognisance of the police report (chargesheet) or the complaint.
In the present case, the chargesheet was filed only in 2016,
seven years after the alleged offence and hence, cognisance
taken by the trial court was barred by limitation.
214 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

c. The requirement of prior sanction under Section 197(1), Cr. PC
applies to both serving and retired civil servants.
10. The short issue arising for determination is, whether the High Court
was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, as prayed by
Ramesh, on the grounds of (i) the chargesheet having been filed
more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and (ii)
lack of sanction.
11. It is considered appropriate to examine the challenge laid by the
appellant by reading Rule 214 first in its entirety. For ease of
understanding, Rule 214 is extracted below:

RULE 214
“214(1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for
misconduct or negligence.-
The Government reserve to themselves the right of either
withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof,
whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is
found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the
period of his service including the service under a foreign
employer and the service rendered upon re-employment
after retirement.
(b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension:
The Government reserve to themselves the right of
ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a
foreign employer under whom the Government servant has
worked on deputation or otherwise. If in any departmental
or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of
grave negligence during the period of his service, including
the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Public Service Commission shall be
consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided
further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn,
the amount of pension shall not be reduced below the
amount of minimum pension prescribed under the rules.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 215

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-
rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was
in service whether before his retirement or during his
re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under
this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had continued in
service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are
instituted by an authority other than Government, that
authority shall submit a report recording its findings to
the Government.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while
the Government servant was in service, whether before
his retirement or during his re-employment.
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
Government.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place
more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place
as the Government may direct and in accordance with
the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in
which an order of dismissal from service could be made
in relation to the Government servant during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, 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.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and
against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings
are instituted or where departmental proceedings are
continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as
provided in Rule 214A shall be sanctioned.
216 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(5) Where the Government decided not to withhold or
withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss
from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at
a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on
the date of retirement of a Government servant.
(6) For the purpose of this rule,-
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted on the date on which the statement of charges
is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the
Government servant has been placed under suspension
from an earlier date, on such date: and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on
which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which
the Magistrate takes cognisance is made; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint
is presented in the court.”
12. Rule 214 is part of Chapter XV (titled General Rules) under Part IV
(titled Ordinary Pension) of the KCS Rules, 1958. On a plain reading,
Rule 214 is relatable to withholding and withdrawal of pension.
Rule 214(1)(a) is a provision that empowers the Government to
either withhold or withdraw a pension, or any part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specified period, in a case where the pensioner
is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in any departmental
or judicial proceedings. This provision can be invoked for misconduct
or negligence committed during the period of the pensioner’s
service, including any service rendered during re-employment after
retirement.
13. Rule 214(3) provides for a bar on initiation of a “judicial proceeding”
against a public servant after four years of the cause of action having
arisen or event having taken place. The date on which the judicial
proceeding is deemed to have been instituted is provided under
Rule 214(6)(b).
14. Does Rule 214 have any application to stifle criminal proceedings for
offences punishable under the IPC or the PC Act or any analogous
law?
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 217

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

15. It is an acknowledged art of interpretation of statutes to harmonise
the textual meaning of a particular provision with its contextual
significance; and, to gain a deeper insight, the interpreter may uncover
the underlying policy for the same to be codified.
16. In our considered opinion, the text of Rule 214 read in the context in
which it is invocable and its underlying policy make it clear as daylight
that the relevance of the same would arise only when the Government,
in its discretion, elects to invoke it for a proposed withholding or
withdrawal of pension, due to a pensioner, for misconduct or for
the purpose of recovery of any loss that it has sustained by reason
of his delinquency, subject of course to the pre-conditions for such
invocation being satisfied. Rule 214, by any rule of construction,
has no application to nip pending criminal proceedings in the bud or
for stifling such proceedings after cognisance of offence has been
taken for no better reason than that the timelines embodied therein
have not been adhered to.
17. The reason is simple. Though Rule 214 operates in a distinct domain,
separate from investigation and prosecution following registration of
an FIR and submission of a police report (chargesheet) and taking
of cognisance of offence under Chapters XII and XIV of the Cr. PC,
respectively, there is no conflict between the two. The policy behind
Rule 214 is that a pensioner’s entitlement to pension is contingent
upon a clean record, both during and after service. This rule seeks
to ensure that a pensioner does not go scot-free despite having
indulged in misconduct or criminal activity while in service or even
after quitting service (as future good conduct is a condition for
continuous entitlement to pension). The need for a clean record is,
thus, essential. Needless to observe, the scope of Rule 214 extends
beyond corruption-related crimes, enabling withholding or withdrawal
of pension for any offence punishable under the law. The timelines
in Rule 214, as embodied, would bear significance to ensure that no
pensioner is unnecessarily harassed or made to wait indefinitely for
release of the whole of his pension and other retiral benefits owing
to institution/pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings in relation
to events of the distant past. In a particular case, the Government
could find itself disabled to withhold or withdraw pension owing
to the timelines creating a bar, but that per se cannot be seen as
reason enough for stifling an otherwise valid investigative process
including submission of police report in terms of the provisions of the
218 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Cr. PC., or for taking cognisance of the offence, once such report
is submitted. Mr. Kamat has rightly argued that Rule 214 cannot
be read in a manner so as to have the effect of whittling down the
powers conferred on the investigative agencies by Part XII of the
Cr. PC or the relevant magistrate under Chapter XIV thereof. Even
without an order/action for withholding or withdrawing pension, an
investigation of a cognisable offence punishable under the IPC or
the PC Act or any analogous law is not barred either under Rule
214 or by any other statutory intendment.
18. For the purpose of deciding the present appeals, we are not concerned
as to whether the timelines that Rule 214 embody operate as a
bar or not for withholding or withdrawing pension that Ramesh is
entitled to as per the relevant rules, or whether there has been any
valid order/action in that regard. Here, the High Court has quashed
the proceedings against Ramesh by referring to Rule 214 which,
indubitably, had no application. The first ground on which the
proceedings have been quashed is, thus, manifestly unsustainable.
19. Next, we move on to examine whether the High Court was justified
in quashing the proceedings against Ramesh on the ground that
sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC had not been obtained.
20. The acts of commission of offence in the discharge of official
duties by a public servant, punishable under the IPC and the PC
Act, have obviously to be dealt with firmly. But Section 197, Cr.
PC contemplates protection to responsible public servants against
institution of possible vexatious criminal proceedings alleged to
have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act
as public servants. Protection under Section 197, Cr. PC extends
both to serving as well as retired public servants. Prior to taking
cognisance of offences punishable under the IPC, sanction ought
to have been obtained. No sanction has, admittedly, been obtained
and hence we hold that quashing of the proceedings qua IPC
offences was just and proper.
21. However, the High Court fell in error in quashing the proceedings
qua the offences under the PC Act as it did not appreciate that
Section 19 thereof, prior to its amendment with effect from 26th July,
2018, applied only to public servants who were in office at the time
of taking of cognisance of offence.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 219

State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.

22. At paragraphs 33 and 34 of the decision in A. Srinivasulu v. State
of T.N.16, this Court explained that before the PC Act was amended
by Act 16 of 2018, prior sanction under Section 19(1)(a) was required
only for public servants who were in service at the time of taking
cognisance and not for those who had retired. However, after the
2018 amendment, prior sanction became necessary even for those
who were in service at the time the offence was committed, regardless
of whether they had retired by the time cognisance was taken. The
Court thereafter noted that Accused No. 1 (therein) had retired in
1997, the chargesheet was filed in 2002, and cognisance was taken
in 2003. Since the accused was not in service at the time cognisance
was taken, no prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was
needed for his prosecution.
23. Therefore, since Ramesh had retired on 31st May 2012 and cognisance
of the offence was taken only on 3rd June 2016, he was not entitled
to the protection under Section 19 of the PC Act. Such protection
would have been available to him only if cognisance were taken
while he was still in service.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, the issue formulated in paragraph 10
is answered by holding that the High Court erred in quashing the
proceedings on the first ground, completely, and on the second
ground, partly.
25. The appeals, therefore, succeed in part. The impugned order,
quashing the proceedings for the offence(s) punishable under
Section 13(1)(c) &(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, stands
set aside. The proceedings against Ramesh are restored and may
continue for such offence(s).
26. In view of the provisions of Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Cr. PC stands repealed; yet, pending
proceedings are expressly permitted to be continued under the
repealed law. We, therefore, observe that Ramesh may be prosecuted
for offences punishable under the IPC, if so advised, but only after
obtaining sanction therefor according to the repealed law for which
liberty is reserved.

16 (2023) 13 SCC 705
220 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

27. The appeals stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
28. Connected applications, if pending, stand closed.
29. Before parting, we place on record that although the present appellate
proceedings stemmed from writ petitions concerning predominantly
penal laws and quashing of criminal proceedings, the special leave
petitions were registered as civil petitions. If there has been a mistake,
to correct the records, Registry may renumber the special leave
petitions as criminal petitions and based thereon assign appropriate
numbers to the appeals treating the same to be appeals arising on
the criminal side.

Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain