ORDER :

1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Environmental Officer in the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (“the Board”) in the year 1992 and is presently working as a Senior Environmental Officer.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2023, by which the State Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, “the CCA Rules”) has entrusted the conduct of the departmental enquiry initiated against him to the Upa-Lokayukta.

3. The facts leading to the above are as follows:

a. On 31.08.2017, a complaint was filed by one Sri.H.P.Sheshanna alleging that Jubilant Generics Limited was responsible for polluting the air and water of Kapila river by discharging effluents.

b. The petitioner, who was the concerned Environmental Officer, considered the complaint and explained to the complainant that there was no discharge of effluents into the Kapila river by said industry.

c. The said Sri.H.P.Sheshanna, not being satisfied with the explanation, proceeded to submit a complaint to the Lokayukta on 23.09.2017 reiterating his complaint regarding the pollution by Jubilant Generics Limited.

d. On the basis of this complaint, the Lokayukta forwarded the complaint to the petitioner and called upon him to submit his comments and also furnish the relevant documents. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.10.2017.

e. The Lokayukta, on consideration of his reply, proceeded to submit a report to the Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, “the Lokayukta Act”) recommending the initiation of an enquiry against the Panchayat Development Officer and the petitioner herein. The Upa-Lokayukta also recommended that the enquiry be entrusted to it, as provided under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.

f. On receipt of the above recommendation, the State Government proceeded to issue a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him and called upon the petitioner to submit a reply to the Board, along with a copy of the report to the Government.

g. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply putting forth his contention that there was no truth in the allegations made against him and, therefore, there was no justification for conducting an enquiry.

h. The Board, in turn, sought a report from the Chief Environmental Officer-2 regarding the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act submitted by the Upa-Lokayukta. The Chief Environmental Officer, on examining the matter, proceeded to submit a report in which he stated that there were no lapses on the part of the petitioner and there was no justification for conducting an enquiry as recommended by the Upa-Lokayukta.

i. This report of the Chief Environmental Officer was accepted by the Board vide its resolution dated 22.10.2021. It was resolved by the Board not to accept the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta and also resolved that an appropriate report be sent to the Government requesting it to close the proceedings.

j. Thereafter, on 08.12.2021, a resolution was passed by the Board with a request to the Government to close the proceedings.

k. Two years thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 07.09.2023 by the Government deciding to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayukta to conduct an enquiry, as provided under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order of entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta and has hence presented this petition.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the State Government cannot exercise its powers under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules against the petitioner, since the petitioner is an employee of the Board, which is governed by its own Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. It is contended that the power to entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is available only in respect of Go