IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority must adhere to the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, particularly Section 12(3), (4) and (5), and must not consider irrelevant factors in its decision-making process. Additionally, the judgment reaffirmed the right of the Lokayukta to question an order passed without the application of mind.

ORDER :

Challenging Government order no.C.A.SUE/103/KEV/2016, Bangalore, dated 22.03.2018 passed by respondent no.1 as per Annexure-A, this petition is filed.

2. Sri V.S. Arbatti, learned counsel for petitioner- Karnataka Lokayukta, submitted that on a complaint lodged by one Mr.Srinivas son of Sri. Venkataramanappa, Boodigere village, Devanahalli Taluk, against respondent no.2 about dereliction of duty, an investigation under Section 9 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short 'K.L.Act') was conducted. On conclusion of enquiry and finding sufficient material against respondent no.2, report dated 14.06.2016 under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act was forwarded to respondent no.1, recommending departmental enquiry and for its entrustment to Lokayukta. It was submitted that said report accompanied with entire material gathered during enquiry.

3. On receipt of report under Section 12(3) of K.L.Act, though, respondent no.1 was required to examine and intimate action taken or proposed to be taken under Section 12(4) of the Act, respondent no.1 passed impugned order under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classifications Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, rejecting recommendation.

4. It was submitted that while considering report submitted under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act, respondent no.1 would not be exercising appellate jurisdiction. In instant case, respondent no.1 not only issued notice to respondent no.2, but also based it's order on approval granted by concerned Minister, which would be illegal. It was submitted that respondent no.1 was enjoined to consider only report and material forwarded along with it and thereafter decide whether to accept report/recommendations or otherwise, and to intimate same to Lokayukta. It would not be appropriate for respondent no.1 to virtually sit in appeal over recommendation, as would appear wherein respondent no.1 issued notice to respondent no.2, afforded opportunity and thereafter decided not to proceed with holding departmental enquiry as proposed. Therefore, sought for quashing of impugned order etc.

5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of this Court in Writ Petition no.33097/2017, disposed of on 21.12.2018 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Office of the Odisha Lokayukta Vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 175.

6. On other hand, Sri. Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to support impugned order. It was firstly submitted that petitioner lacked locus-standi to question impugned order as Section 12 (5) of the Act only permitted Lokayukta to submit a special report to Governor, in case of dissatisfaction with action taken by Government and could not challenge order as an aggrieved party.

7. Even on merits, it was submitted that issuance of notice was in compliance of principles of natural justice and therefore, there were no serious infirmities in impugned order. In support of his submission, learned counsel sought to rely upon decision of this Court in case of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries and Ors., ILR 2015 Kar. 5591 and judgment in W.P.No.25078-18/2016 disposed of on 15.07.2016.

8. Learned HCGP submitted that while passing impugned order, respondent no.1 had examined material based on which report was submitted and on consideration, order was passed. Therefore, there was no infirmity in same.

9. Heard learned counsel and perused record.

10. There is no dispute about complaint having been filed against respondent no.2. Further it is also not in dispute about enquiry being held under Section 9 of K.L. Act by affording opportunity to respondent no.2 and after it's conclusion, petitioner submitted report to respondent no.1 under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act and thereafter respondent no.1 passed impugned order.

11. While it is contended by petitioner that instead of confining to report and material accompanying it, responde