ORDER :

MAHESHAN NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition have called in question the order dated 09.03.2017 by which conduct of departmental enquiry is entrusted to the hands of the third respondent - Lokayukta and the consequent action of the fourth respondent issuing charge sheet on 31.8.2017.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition as pleaded are that:

The first petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Office Manager and second petitioner as Revenue Officer at Tumkur Town Municipality. During their service, one Smt. Rajamma filed an application for change of khata of property bearing site No. 518/3390 measuring 49.5'/22' and site No. 518/3391 measuring 25' x 65.5', both situate at Tumkur town on the strength of a gift deed executed by the owner of the said property Smt. Puttahonnamma. The application submitted by Smt. Rajamma was accompanied with gift deed and other documents that are required for change of khata in the name of the applicant. The application was submitted to the first petitioner on 05.06.2013. After scrutiny of documents and calling for objections, the second petitioner effected change of khata in favour of the applicant Smt. Rajamma on 31.7.2013.

3. After the change of khata, a complaint came to be registered before the Lokayukta by one Shivananda contending that the khata is changed on the strength of a document i.e., General Power of Attorney which is allegedly executed by Puttahonnamma who had by then died. On this complaint, a notice was issued to the petitioners as required under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for short) and petitioners replied to the same. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioners, the Lokayukta furnished its report under Section 12(3) of the said Act seeking an order to be passed under Section 12(4) of the said Act by the Government. The Government by its order dated 09.03.2017 passed an order entrusting the enquiry to the hands of the third respondent in terms of Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS(CCA) Rules' for short) in compliance whereof a charge sheet was issued by the fourth respondent on 31.8.2017. It is this order of entrustment and the charge sheet that are called in question in the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Vijaya kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt. Sharadamba A.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

5. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that the first petitioner who was in the cadre of Office Manager reported to duty to the post of Office Manager only after the incident of change of khata was over and he had nothing to do with the change of khata effected by the second petitioner and his name is dragged into the proceedings unnecessarily.

6. Insofar as it pertains to the second petitioner who was at the relevant point of time working as Revenue Officer, the learned Counsel would submit that in terms of the application that was brought before him which contained all the requisite documents to effect change of khata, same was accepted and khata was effected by order dated 31.7.2013. He would submit that he has committed no misconduct in change of khata as what was brought before him is in accordance with law and what he has effected is also in accordance with law.

7. Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Counsel appearing for third and fourth respondents would submit the enquiry proceedings are yet to commence in terms of the charge sheet dated 31.8.2017 and unless the same is proceeded and culminates in an order or otherwise, the writ petition would not be maintainable as it would be premature. No right of the petitioner is taken away by the act of entrustment or the issuance of articles of ch