ORDER :

G. Narendar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The facts are not in dispute and the short question that arises for consideration is whether the enquiry directed against the petitioner and conducted by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction?

3. The case of the petitioner is that his services have been utilized by the Department of Municipal Administration as a Junior engineer on a daily wage basis from the year 1996 and till date of the impugned order he was continued in the service as a casual employee and daily wager and his services have neither been regularized nor it appears that he had sought for regularization.

4. In the above background, it is contended that on 30.09.2014, a complaint came to be lodged before the City Corporation, Tumkur, where he was discharging duties as Junior Engineer in Ward No.23, Jagannathapura Layout. In the complaint, it was stated that the construction had been put up by one Lakshmaiah without obtaining requisite sanction and also without leaving any set back as per the building by-laws.

5. On, no action being taken, the complainant approached respondent No.2 complaining inaction by the officers in charge. It is contended that on receipt of the complaint, the Assistant Executive Engineer issued notice to the building owner calling upon him to furnish his reply to the complaint. Despite the above but pursuant to the complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has replied to the said notice. Upon receipt of replies from the petitioner and the building owner, respondent No.2 has drawn up and sent a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 and the same was forwarded to respondent No.1 recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and another person, namely, Sri. N.K.Vishwanath.

6. In response, respondent No.1 has issued an order on 28.02.2017 invoking the provision of Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 entrusting the Departmental enquiry to the respondent No.2. Pursuant to the entrustment, respondent No.2 has conducted an enquiry and the complainant-Sri.Shivanandaiah was examined as PW1 and Sri.N.K.Vishwanath was examined as DW1. Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the respondents and Exhibit D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the delinquent government officers and on conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted to respondent No.1 holding that the charges have been proved and it was recommended that respondent No.1 impose penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect as against the DGO and based on the recommendations, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner as to why penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner has replied to the show cause notice and thereafter, based on the reply, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 imposing penalty of removal from service.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. Apart from several grounds urged by the petitioner, it was also contended that the Civil Services Rules are inapplicable to the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager and has been continued till date as a daily wager. That the initiation of the enquiry is contrary to the ambit of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1957. The said Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, reads as under:

"3.Application -

(1) These rules apply to all Government Servants except:-

(a) Persons employed in any Indus