Point of Law : Rule 15 of CCA Rules confers power on the Borrowing Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings in the same manner as that of Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) To call for records relating to issue of the impugned order bearing No. Gra. Aa. Pa. 32 INQ 2011, Bengaluru dated 09.11.2011, under Regulations 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, passed by the 2nd respondent (vide Annexure-A) and after perusal set aside the same.

(b) To quash the impugned show cause notice bearing No. LOE 86 SeEV, Bengaluru dated 15-02-2021 of the 4th respondent (vide Annexure-G).

(c) Grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD for short) and was deputed to the Panchayat Raj Department (PRD for short) and while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the said Department, vide letter dated 26.06.2007, the District Social Welfare Officer of Gulbarga asked the petitioner to inspect and submit a report as regards construction work of the Sakpal Pre-Metric Hostel at Kurikot and an inspection report was submitted. When it was alleged that the petitioner had taken a bribe of Rs.5,000/-, in pursuance thereof, a complaint came to be filed before the Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga, registered as Crime No. 9/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein he was tried and acquitted on 16.03.2012. Subsequent thereto, suo-moto proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 3-Upalokayukta against the petitioner and a report came to be submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The second respondent-Under Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department vide its order dated 09.11.2011 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') which inturn came to be entrusted to the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 of the Lokayukta on 19.11.2011 vide Annexure-B. The enquiry proceeding having been completed, recommendation was submitted on 28.10.2019 vide Annexure-F. It is thereafter that a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2021 vide Annexure-G. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The contention of Sri.Avinash A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that:

3.1. The petitioner having been employed under the PWD, it is the PWD who is the employer and the Disciplinary Authority insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3.2. The petitioner having been deputed to the PRD, the said department could not have entrusted the enquiry which is contrary to Rule 14-A of the Rules. His submission is that once the entrustment itself is bad, all further proceedings taken up in pursuance thereto are required to be quashed.

3.3. It is only the competent authority under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) who could entrust the matter for enquiry to the Lokayuka or Upalokayukta for enquiry.

3.4. By referring to sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act, he submits that insofar as the public servant is concerned, the prescribed authority would be the competent authority. By referring to sub-rule (c) of Rule 2 of CCA Rules, he submits that it is only the Disciplinary Authority who could have entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for enquiry. To determine who the Disciplinary Authority is he takes to the definition of ‘Appointing Authority’ under sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 of CCA Rules and states that it is the Appointing Authority who would be the Disciplinary Authority who could entrust the matter for enquiry.

3.5. In the present case, the Appointing Authority being the PWD Department, the said department having lent the services of the petitioner to PRD, the PRD could not