Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated without prima facie evidence of misconduct, as established by the Tribunal's ruling that the entrustment order lacked sufficient material.

ORDER :

(T.M. NADAF, J.)

Though the matter is listed for ‘Preliminary Hearing’, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA, heard for final disposal.

2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘the Tribunal’, for short) in Application No.1134/2018, whereby, the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 – Government in proceedings No. 2017 vide Annexure – A16 entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules of 1957’, for short) is quashed.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this case are as under:-

On the compliant of one Sri.Bhavani Ramprasad S/o Krishna Prasad, the Karnataka Lokayukta initiated a suo- moto enquiry under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (the ‘Act of 1984’, for short) and directed the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Hassan to investigate and report. The Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’, for short) said to have submitted his report stating that there are several violations by the license holders i.e., allowing the public to consume liquour in the shops and offering to sell liquor at the higher rates than the MRP.

The Excise Department has issued notices on such violations to the licensees even registered criminal cases, which were called in question before several forums including this Court and interim orders were granted on said notices and criminal proceedings. Further, it has come in the report that despite, the Excise Officers registering criminal cases against the licensees, the violations are being repeated and the respondent No.1 failed to control the same.

4. Considering the report of the I.O. and after affording an opportunity to the respondent, the petitioner forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 holding that there is a prima facie lapses and dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.1, which amounts to misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1966’, for short) with a recommendation for entrustment of the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957. On the materials found in the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, the respondent No.2 – Government proceeded to pass an order on 11.10.2017 entrusting departmental enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957, against the respondent No.1.

5. The respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order of entrustment filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.1134/2018. The contentions of the petitioner before the Tribunal were that, on the very same complaint of said Sri.Bhavani Ramprasad to the Excise Joint Commissioner, Mysuru, the departmental superiors conducted a preliminary enquiry/investigation and came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the complaint as per the report dated 21.08.2015. Subsequently, as per the communication issued by the Excise Commissioner dated 24.03.2017, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hassan, furnished another report dated 19.04.2017 stating that there is no basis for the complaint. Subsequently, on the communication of the Excise Commissioner dated10.05.2017, a report by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hassan, dated 25.05.2017 submitted, which was forwarded to the Government stating that there is no basis for the complaint.

6.