ORDER :

1. The writ petitioners, who happen to be the public servants, are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the common Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2019 made by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, whereby their Application Nos. 536-538 of 2017 wherein a challenge was laid to the proceedings under the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, have been negatived. After service of notice, the respondent-State Government is represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the respondent-Lokayuktha is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel; both they vehemently oppose the writ petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order of the KAT.

2. Brief facts of the case:

(a) The Lokayuktha proceedings were triggered by the complaint of one Mr. Gavisiddappa Saloni, an advocate from Gangavathi; the allegation was that certain land records were meddled with and phodi of lands was made unlawfully; the said complaint was referred to the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal, for preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 9(3) of the Act; the Assistant Commissioner, in turn, forwarded a copy of the complaint to the petitioners who had filed the objections; he had submitted his Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 25.06.2015 recommending for the investigation.

(b) The Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuktha, having investigated into the matter, submitted to the Government Section 12(3) Report dated 28.03.2016 recommending a Disciplinary Enquiry; accordingly, the Government vide order dated 09.12.2016 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957; the Upa-Lokayuktha, vide order dated 23.12.2016 authorised the Additional Registrar (Inquiries-10) who issued the Charge Memo dated 05.01.2017; therefore, the petitioner had approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal seeking quashment of the entire Lokayukta proceedings culminating into issuance of Charge Memo; the Tribunal having rejected their cases, petitioners are before us.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers and also the original file produced and taken back by the Panel Counsel for the Lokayuktha, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(a) The only question that was canvassed before this Court is as to who should forward a copy of the complaint to the delinquent officials; the learned Advocates for the petitioners argue that it is only the Lokayuktha/Upa-Lokayuktha, after the Preliminary Inquiry, should do this; in support of this, he banks upon a decision of a learned Single Judge (K.A. Swami, J.) of great repute in N. Gundappa vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar. 223 which is affirmed in appeal in State of Karnataka vs. N. Gundappa, ILR 1990 Kar. 4188; per contra, learned panel counsel for the Lokayuktha joined by the learned AGA vehemently contends that, if the officer who is entrusted with the Preliminary Inquiry forwards a copy of the complaint to the delinquents, the requirement of law is satisfied.

(b) Both the sides heavily bank upon their own interpretation of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act which read as under:

“9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations:

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he:

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint [and in the case of an investigation initiated suo moto by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section 7] to the public servant and the competent authority concerned.

(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint [or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 7 as the case may be].

In the aforesaid decisions, the above provisions have been held to be mandatory and therefore, their violation, if any