The petitioners, working as Community Affairs

Officer and Office Manager in City Municipal Council,

Robertsonpet and Chintamani respectively are before this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

to quash the Government Order bearing No.NaAE 35 DMK

2017 Bengaluru dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure 3 P)

entrusting enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for

short 8the KCS Rules9) as well as articles of charge

bearing

No.UPALOK-2/D.E/149/2022/A.R.E-9

dated

3

12.07.2022 (Annexure Q) and to grant consequential

benefits.

Heard Ms. M.L.Suvarna, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri K.Puttegowda, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri T.P.Srinivas, learned Principal Government

Advocate for the 1^st respondent and Sri Venkatesh S.

Arabatti, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. Perused

the writ petition papers.

3.

Ms. M.L.Suvarna, learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that petitioners at the relevant point of time

worked as Community Affairs Officer and First Division

Assistant in City Municipal Council, Kolar. On the complaint

(Annexure

3

A)

dated

28.08.2012

by

one

Sri K.V.Manjunath, investigation was taken up by the 2^nd

respondent-Lokayukta and after investigation report under

Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was

submitted to the 1^st respondent-Government.

4.

The 1^st respondent-Government by order dated

04.12.2017 (Annexure 3 L) entrusted the inquiry to Upa

4

Lokayukta. The said order of entrustment was the subject

matter of W.P.No.2740/2020. This Court by order dated

30.06.2021 set aside the entrustment order on the ground

of non application of mind and observed that the impugned

order of entrustment requires reconsideration at the hands

of the Government. In pursuance to the direction of this

Court, the 1^st respondent reconsidered the entire issue and

passed order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure 3 P) and again

entrusted the enquiry to the Upa Lokayukta under Rule

14A of the KCS Rules. In pursuance to entrustment,

article of charge dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure 3 Q) was

issued. Challenging the entrustment order as well as the

article of charge, the petitioners are before this Court in

this writ petition.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

entrustment order is again the result of non application of

mind by 1^st respondent. The learned counsel submits that

paragraph No.4 is added to earlier quashed order and the

present impugned order dated 04.03.2022 is issued.

There is no independent application of mind to the cases of

5

the petitioners as to why the inquiry is to be entrusted to

the Upa Lokayukta. Further, it is submitted that 1^st

respondent Government has failed to examine as to

whether any case is made out against the petitioners for

conducting inquiry in pursuance to Section 12(3) report of

the Upa Lokayukta dated 21.02.2017. Learned counsel

fairly submits that petitioners have failed in their challenge

to Section 12(3) report in W.P Nos.26793-94 of 2017

dated 24.01.2019.

6.

Ms. M.L. Suvarna, learned counsel for the petitioners

fairly submits that since the position is settled, she would

not press for grounds urged at paragraph 14 of the writ

petition. The only point pressed by the learned counsel is

with regard to non-application of mind by the 1^st

respondent-Government, while entrusting the enquiry to

Upa Lokayukta. Learned counsel further submits that

initially name of petitioners were not found in the

complaint and subsequently it was added during the

course of investigation.

6

7.

Sri T.P. Srinivas, learned Principal Government

Advocate as well as Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned

counsel for the respondent Lokayuktha would submit that

Government Order (Annexure-P) dated 04.03.2022 is

passed only after looking into entire material on record

forwarded by Upa Lokayuka while forwarding Section 12(3)

report. Thus they submit that it is for the petitioners to

d