Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G. PANDIT, T.M. NADAF, JJ.
The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road Bangalore – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, rep. By Its Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14077 of 2021 (S-KSAT)
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.14(a), R.8(viii), R.9
Headnote
(B) Principles of Law - The Tribunal's order stands on grounds of incompetence of authority despite the unchallenged dismissal order; the government, when implicated in an enquiry under Lokayukta, retains the power to impose penalties under Rule 8. (Paras 9, 10, 16)
(C) Fresh Orders - The new order exonerating the servant indicates compliance with Tribunal protocols, questioning prior proceedings lacks merit. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The Karnataka Lokayukta challenged the Tribunal's decision that quashed the dismissal of a civil servant due to jurisdictional overreach by the Commissioner, affirming that the Government held the disciplining powers post-Lokayukta's enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's ruling was affirmed reflecting the Government's sole competence as per Rule 14-A; the Lokayukta’s challenge was deemed unjustified as the recommended actions had already been taken in line with the law.
Issues: Whether the Government or a Disciplinary Authority other than Government is competent to impose penalties following an enquiry by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the Lokayukta conducts an inquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, only the Government is competent to impose penalties, thus confirming the Tribunal's decision.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Respondents: Sri. R. Subramanya, Adv. for Sri M.S. Devaraju, Adv., Sri B. Ravindranath, AGA.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary authority under cca rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's error in authority competence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government's acceptance of tribunal's order. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. enquiry authority delineation under cca rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. government's authority to impose penalties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. non-challenge of tribunal's order by the government. (Para 15) |
| 7. responsibility of lokayukta as a government entity. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
(S.G. PANDIT, J.)
The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 26.04.2019 in Application No.1892/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’), whereunder the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the third respondent, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture with liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on the recommendation dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-A10) of the Upa-Lokayukta and to pass orders in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the second respondent-State Government under Government Order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) entrusted the enquiry against respondent No.3 to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). In terms of the said entrustment order, the Enquiry Officer nominated by the Upa-Lokayukta issued articles of charge dated 25.08.2010 and after detailed enquiry, enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta was submitted to the State Government. The third respondent being the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report to the fourth respondent and thereafter third respondent passed impugned order of punishment at Annexure-A14 dated 26.03.2019, imposing punishment of dismissal on the fourth respondent in exercise of power under Rule 8(viii) of the CCA Rules. The fourth respondent questioning the said order of dismissal was before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.1892/2019. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 26.04.2019 on the ground that the Director of Agriculture nor the Commissioner of Department of Agriculture have no locus standi to issue second show cause notice and consequent impugned order of dismissal, quashed the impugned order only on the ground of incompetency with liberty to the first respondent-Government to take action in accordance with law. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 9 of CCA Rules would submit that the third respondent, Commissioner and the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the fourth respondent – Second Division Assistant would possess competence and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The Tribunal committed grave error in not noticing that the third respondent is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority in respect of the fourth respondent-Second Division Assistant. It is his further submission that though enquiry is conducted by the Upa- Lokayukta on entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority shall impose the punishment. The power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 of CCA Rules shall be read along with Rule 14-A of CCA Rules.
5. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has failed to assign proper reasons so also failed to take note of the fact that the charges of corruption against the fourth respondent as proved. Learned counsel would also contend that the Tribunal could not h
