The petitioners, who are/were the employees of the second respondent Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (‘KSRTC’ for short), have challenged the articles of charges and have also sought the declaration to the effect that the KSRTC and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (‘BMTC’ for short) have no power either under the Security Standing Order, dated 04.04.1957 or under the Security Standing Order No.10/1983 to lay the traps against the petitioners and the further declaration that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated under these two Standing Orders against the petitioners. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had earlier filed W.P.Nos.6627-6628/2013, seeking the writ of certiorari for quashing the disciplinary proceedings. The said writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 29.8.2013, reserving the liberty to the said petitioners to advance the plea, in the domestic enquiry, that the vigilance officers were not competent to lay a trap. On the filing of the application advancing such a plea, the enquiry officer dismissed it by his order, dated 03.03.2014. The petitioners have subsequently amended their petitions for raising the challenge to the order of the enquiry officer, dated 03.03.2014.

2. At the very outset of her submissions, Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submits that these petitions have become infructuous in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 and 5, namely, Sri Ramesh and Sri U.S. Karegowda, as they are dismissed from service on 13.04.2015 and 13.12.2014 respectively.

3. Sri Kashinath, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the liberty be reserved to the said petitioners to challenge the dismissal orders.

4. These petitions in respect of the second petitioner and the fifth petitioner are dismissed as having become infructuous reserving the liberty to them to challenge the dismissal orders in appropriate proceedings.

5. The facts of the case in brief are that the fourth respondent conducted the trap against the first petitioner on 24.12.2011 on receiving the information that the first petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from a driver-cum-conductor B.Anjanappa for sanctioning the leave to him. The respondent No.4 caught the petitioner No.3 while receiving the bribe of Rs. 4,000/- from Basavaraju for declaring his probationary period. The petitioner No.4 was trapped by the Security and Vigilance Department of the K.S.R.T.C. while taking the bribe of Rs. 500/- from one driver-cum-conductor Sathish for sanctioning the leave. The respondent No.4 caught petitioner No.6 while he was receiving the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one M.A. Rajashekhar, the Accounts Supervisor of B.M.T.C. for processing his voluntary retirement application. The enquiry proceedings against the said four petitioners are at different stages.

6. Sri Kashinath, learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically denies that the petitioners have demanded and/or taken any bribe from anybody. He submits that the disciplinary proceedings are without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that the Security and Vigilance Departments of K.S.R.T.C. and B.M.T.C. have no power to lay the trap under the service regulations. He submits that the Standing Orders, dated 18.8.1983 and 24.03.2014 on which the reliance is made by the respondents, are not in consonance with Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. He submits that the said Standing Orders are not issued by any competent authority. He submits that they are not issued by the K.S.R.T.C. as such.

7. Sri Kashinath submits that the respondents have been issuing ambiguous circulars - once stating that the Security and Vigilance Department, K.S.R.T.C. has no power to lay the trap and thereafter making a ‘u’ turn by holding that it has such a power. He submits that if the complaint of bribery is received, it has to be sent to the Lokayuktha Police. The proceedings can be initiated only under the Prevent