ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners-State challenging the order passed in Application No.1433/2018, dated 11.06.2020 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

2. Respondent No.1 who is the applicant before the tribunal was working in the Public Works Department as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, he was posted to work in Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike at Bengaluru (for short 'BBMP'). It is contended that one Deepak V., had filed a complaint to the BBMP on 03.04.2014 against one Rajkumar alleging that the said Rajkumar has put up an illegal construction of a compound wall and the said construction was made without the approved plan and license. Subsequently, Deepak V., has filed another complaint dated 12.11.2014 before respondent No.3 against private respondent No.1/Assistant Engineer for dereliction of duty for not taking any action against Rajakumar. A detailed explanation was given by private respondent No.1 on 20.12.2014 and he has stated that the alleged compound wall was constructed on conservancy area which belongs to BBMP, the same was inspected on 16.12.2014 and the said compound wall was removed on 20.12.2014.

3. Based on the complaint filed by the owner –

Rajkumar, a notice was issued to the complainant – Sri. Deepak to furnish the sanctioned plan/site documents relating to the ownership of site No.29/30. In the meanwhile, the petitioners/Government without examining the materials and appreciating the facts, passed the order under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1957 (for short 'KCS (CCA) Rules'), entrusting Lokayuktha Authorities to initiate enquiry against respondent No.1. Subsequently, articles of charges were issued by respondent No.4 against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 challenging the correctness and legality of the said order, filed an application before the tribunal. The tribunal after considering the reply of respondent No.1 and other documents, allowed the said application and set aside the impugned articles of charge bearing No.LOK/DE/877/2017/ARE-8 dated 22.07.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has preferred this petition.

4. We have heard Smt. Shilpa S.Gogi, learned HCGP for petitioners/State and Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.1 and perused the records.

5. The records disclose that soon after complaint was lodged with the BBMP, respondent No.1 had initiated the action to demolish the compound wall which was built without any sanctioned plan, but the complainant without waiting for the action to be taken by respondent No.1, has approached respondent No.3, though the applicant/respondent No.1 has immediately taken steps. Looking into the provisions under The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'KMC Act'), specific provisions are provided in the very act itself. Ignoring the same, the complainant has approached Lokayuktha Authorities. Respondent No.3 ought to have suggested the complainant that when more appropriate and efficacious remedies are available under the KMC Act, the complainant could have proceeded with his complaint filed before respondent No.2 instead of approaching respondent No.3. But the same was not done and respondent No.3 proceeded to take action against respondent No.1.

6. It is the settled principles of law that when an efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved party under the particular enactment or law, then the party cannot avail the other alternative remedy. It is evident that the explanation given by respondent No.1 has not been taken into consideration before passing of the entrustment order to initiate enquiry against respondent No.1. It is evident that respondent No.1 has now retired from the service. Infact on a counter complaint made by the owner of the site No.30, a notice was issued to the complainant – Deepak to produce documents relatin