The main legal point established is that the competent authority must apply its mind before entrusting an enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, and the petitioner's opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry.

JUDGMENT

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 6.7.2021 passed in Application No. 9240/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal'), wherein the petitioner's challenge to entrusting the enquiry to Upa-lokayukta under Government Order bearing No. JaSamEi 109 SeEiVi 2018, dated 29.10.2018, under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rule, 1957 (for short, 'CCA Rules') is rejected.

2. Heard Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Lokayukta and perused the writ petition papers.

3. The petitioner working as Assistant Executive Engineer approached the Tribunal in the Application stated above questioning the Government Order bearing No. JaSamEi 109 SeEiVi 2018 dated 29.10.2018, whereby enquiry under Rule 14A of the CCA Rules was entrusted to Upa-Lokayukta. The complaint was filed before the Upa-Lokayukta alleging that petitioner being tender inviting authority issued disregarding the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurement Rules, 2000 (for short 'Rules 2000'). The said complaint was investigated by providing an opportunity to the petitioner and report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act') was submitted to the 1st respondent/Government. The Government on examination of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent under Section 12(3) of the Act, entrusted the enquiry against the petitioner to the Upa-Lokayukta invoking power under Rule 14(A) of CCA Rules.

4. Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned counsel for the petitioner taking us through the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 submits that under Section 12(4) of the Act, competent authority has to examine the report forwarded under Section 12(3) of the Act by applying its mind and thereafter, the competent authority shall take a decision. He submits that there is no application of mind by the 1st respondent-Government while passing the impugned order. It is his submission that the petitioner being a tender inviting authority, has complied with all the relevant rules. Further, he submits that even though the rule requires 30 days' time to be given wherever the tender amount is less than 2 crores, but proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules 2000 empowers the tender inviting authority to reduce such period. Thus, the 1st and 2nd respondents failed to examine the complaint against the petitioner in the light of Rule 17 stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking us through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his application submits that even though, the Tribunal noted the judgments wherein this Court has laid down that while examining the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Act, the competent authority shall examine the report by applying its mind, but it has failed to apply the said principle to the present case. Thus, he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and it requires interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondent submit that the 1st respondent-Government only after applying its mind to the report submitted by the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act as well as on perusal of the material made available along with the report has come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to entrust the enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of CCA Rules. Further, they submit that a perusal of the impugned order indicates the application of mind by 1st respondent-Government. It is their submission that at this stage a roaring enquiry is not necessary and only to find out as to whether there is a prima-facie case, the application of mind is required. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the petition.

7. The facts are not in dispute in th