The government has the authority to refer corruption cases for investigation by the Lokayukta even if departmental inquiries are in progress, ensuring comprehensive enforcement of anti-corruption laws.

1. Heard learned counsel Sri. Satish K., for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for respondent No.3.

2. Under challenge in the instant petition is an order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Application No.1883/2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, whereby, the application of the petitioner that was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of orders dated 16.04.2022 and 12.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1, has been dismissed. On 16.04.2022, the respondent No.1 had ordered a detailed investigation into the allegations against the petitioner by referring the same to the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 7 (2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. [Act 1984]

-

3. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer on 01.09.2010 in the respondent No.2 Department and was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Treasury on 31.05.2016. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the respondent No.2 Department where he worked as the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Kanakapura from 07.07.2017 to 22.01.2021. While working there, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath of the Ramanagar on 20.01.2021 alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification from the Panchayath Development Officers working under him. On the same day, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Executive Officer. A detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations.

-

4. It is stated that the respondent No.1 initiated departmental proceedings vide charge memo dated 13.07.2021. The sole charge against him was that he was demanding illegal gratification from the Panchayath Development Officers who were working under him. The show cause notice was replied to, denying the charge. By order dated 13.10.2021, a retired District/Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer entered into the enquiry on 13.01.2022 and had examined the witnesses PW.1 to PW.9 and it is stated that the enquiry was on the verge of completion. It is then, that the impugned order of 16.04.2022 was passed by respondent No.1 referring the matter to the respondent No.3 to hold investigation under Section 7 (2-A) of the Act, 1984. The aforesaid order of the Government of 16.04.2022 came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which case was dismissed by means of the impugned order of 20.03.2023.

-

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation leveled in the charge memo dated 13.07.2021 and the allegations set out in the impugned order of 16.04.2022 are identical and similar. The Enquiry Officer had commenced the enquiry and the enquiry was at an advanced stage and therefore the order of the Government – respondent No.1 referring the matter to the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 7 (2-A) of the Act 1984 is wholly illegal, as it amounts to conducting the entire enquiry de novo. It is stated that the action of the respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1957’] and