The court ruled that unexplained delays in disciplinary inquiries are unacceptable, emphasizing joint responsibility for timely proceedings.

ORDER :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. These two writ petitions have been taken together as common facts are involved.

2. W.P.No.7432/2024 has been filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.3945/2022 filed by the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.22478/2025. By the said order, the Tribunal has allowed the application and has set aside the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta.

3. The necessary facts for the purpose of decision in these writ petitions briefly stated are that the respondent No.3 was working as Assistant Director of Economic Statistics and while he was working as Assistant Statistics Officer in the District Health and Family Welfare Office, a complaint was lodged by one Dr. Nagraj alleging that the wife of the complainant was practising in "Rakshitha Clinic", Bengaluru of Dr. Sumangala who had applied for renewal of registration for Ultrasound Scanning in Rakshita Clinic for the period from 02.12.2007 to 01.12.2010 under the provisions of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

4. It was further alleged that the licence had not been renewed till November 2008. The respondent No.3, along with two others, came to the said clinic on 04.11.2008 and introduced themselves as officials of the Health and Family Welfare Department. They gave a notice to the wife of the complainant threatening her that she would be sent to jail and she was asked to contact the respondent No.3 and gave his mobile number. When the wife of the complainant met the respondent No.3, he demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- saying that illegal activities were being carried on in the said clinic. When payment of bribe was refused, the respondent No.3 asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- to get the work done.

5. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe to the respondent No.3, he approached the Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City Division and lodged a complaint and on that basis, a case was registered against the respondent No.3 in Crime No.81/2008 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act').

6. The Lokayukta thereafter has initiated suo motu disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 as the respondent No.3 had committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Lokayukta sent a report under Section 12(3) to the Disciplinary Authority recommending to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3.

7. The Competent Authority, vide order dated 10.01.2012, entrusted the Lokayukta to go on with the disciplinary enquiry. Article of Charges was issued against the respondent No.3 on 12.07.2012 by the Lokayuktha and notice was issued to the respondent No.3 to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Since the respondent No.3/DGO had remained absent, he was placed ex parte and accordingly, the matter was posted for ex parte evidence.

8. Subsequently, in the month of November 2012, the DGO entered appearance through his advocate and accordingly, the order placing the respondent No.3 ex parte in the enquiry was recalled and the oral statement of the DGO was recorded.

9. While the disciplinary enquiry was thus proceeding, in the year 2014, the entire case was transferred from ARE-4 to ARE- 5 vide order dated 01.03.2014 of the Registrar of the Lokayukta. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and he was not cross-examined by the DGO and the same was taken a