The Government is the sole disciplinary authority competent to impose penalties following an enquiry by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under the Karnataka CCA Rules, 1957.

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