JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J.

1. The petitioner has sought to quash the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) dated 6.12.2013, in application No. 4862/13 (Annexure-E) and also to quash the letter issued by the first respondent dated 27.7.2009(Annexure-A) and to call for the investigation or enquiry report dated 25.2.2009.

2. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner was working as Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department at Mysuru. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner by the Lokayukta Police under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the meanwhile, on the recommendation made by the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta, a departmental enquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner by the first respondent and the said enquiry was entrusted to Hon'ble Upa-lokayukta as per order, dated 27.07.2009(Annexure-A). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.10740/2013 before this Court. As the petitioner was required to exhaust the appropriate remedy available before the KAT, the Writ Petition was dismissed without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to this order the petitioner appears to have approached the KAT at Bengaluru, challenging Annexure-A. By the impugned order, dated 06.12.2013, (Annexure-E), the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The petitioner has urged two fold contentions. First, it is contended that as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta alone are competent to hold the Disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioner, whereas, in the instant case, the said power has been delegated to the Enquiry Officer contrary to the procedure prescribed in Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. Second, the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges foisted against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the respondents are precluded from holding Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of charges. Hence, on both these grounds the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

5. As the first contention urged by the petitioner is based on Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, the said Rule is extracted here below:

14. A Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta:

(1) The Provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on a reference from Government. [' or where offences alleged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21st day of December 1992'].

2. (a) Where on investigation into any allegation against.

I. a member of the State Civil Services Group-A or Group-B, or

II. a member of the State Civil Services Group- A or Group-B and a member of the State Civil Services Group-C or Group-D or

III. a member of the State Civil Services Group- C or Group-D.

'the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta or, (before the twenty first day of December, 1992), the Inspector General of Police of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police is of the opinion'] that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall forward the record of the investigation along with his recommendation to the Government and the Government, after examining such record; may either direct an inquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta or direct the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12.

(b) Where it