The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act, which impose limitations on Lokayukta investigations, are not applicable when the State Government refers the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta.

1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Government Order dated 27.08.2011 produced at Annexure-E whereby the allegations made against the petitioners herein and the role played by them in the alleged irregularity and illegality committed in the matter of disbursement of loan under the self employment scheme of Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation are referred for an enquiry to the Lokayukta.

3. The State Government has exercised its powers under Section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) while referring the matter for investigation to the Lokayuktha. Petitioners 1 to 5 herein are presently serving as Officers of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in different capacities. Petitioner No.6 was on deputation from the Education Department to the 2nd respondent-Corporation during the relevant period i.e. from September, 1997 to June, 2000. There were allegations of misuse of assets of the Corporation in respect of Self-employment Programme and Safayi Karmachari Rehabilitation Programme inasmuch as the loans that were required to be disbursed to the beneficiaries was not disbursed as per the Scheme to the eligible beneficiaries.

4. In view of the serious nature of the allegations, the State Government entrusted the matter for investigation to the C.O.D. Bangalore. The C.O.D. upon investigation and having considered the relevant files pertaining to 112 beneficiaries, has submitted a report that in the matter of disbursement of loan and release of autorickshaws in favour of eligible applicants in case of 70% of such transactions irregularities had been noticed, in that, 12 of them had submitted false Caste Certificate for availing the benefit, 9 of them had taken the benefit twice, whereas in respect of 56 beneficiaries without their knowledge, the autorickshaws meant to be given to them wee appropriated by the middlemen. In that regard, C.O.D. had suspected the involvement of the petitioners herein.

5. Taking serious note of the irregularities and illegality committed and the involvement of the petitioners, the State Government, in order to have thorough investigation of the matter, exercising the powers under Section 7(2-A) of the At, has referred the entire matter for investigation to the Lokayukta. It is this Government Order dated 27.08.2011 that is called in question by the petitioners in these writ petitions.

6. Sri Satish Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the provisions contained under Sub-Clause 2(c) & (d) of Section 8 of the Act, the State Government could not have referred the matter of investigation by the Lokayukta after the expiry of six months from the date on which the action complained against the petitioners had become known to be complainant nor it had any right after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against the petitioners was alleged to have taken place to make such a reference. It is his submission that the incident has allegedly taken place in the year 2005 and the Government Order referring the matter to the Lokayukta has been passed on 27.08.2011 which is clearly after the expiry of five years from the date the incident had taken place and therefore, in terms of Section 8(2)(d) of the Act, the reference of the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta was illegal. He further contends that the report from the C.O.D. was sent on 20.02.2010, whereas the action to refer the matter has been taken on 27.08.2011 after the expiry of six months from the date the State Government became aware of the alleged irregularities and therefore, reference of the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta after the expiry of six months from the date the action complained became known to the State Government was bad in law as per Section 8(2)(c) of the Act.

7. Learned Government Pleader strongly refutes these contentions an