IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 28554 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

S.S. BHARATHI, W/O SRI J R SRINIVAS, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANGAMAKOTE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562102.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI A V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, Digit ally BANGALORE METROPOLITAN signed by C TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HONNUR SAB SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

Location: 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES -1, HIGH COURT LOKAYUKTA ENQURIES, OF MULTISTORIED BUILDING, KARNATAKA DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ORDER DTD16.5.2018 ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE R-3 CONSEQUENTLYDECLARE THE ORDER DTD8/9.4.2019 ANNEXURE-G OF THE R-1 AS UNLAWFUL AND QUASH THE SAME.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing:

(a) The observation note dated 16.05.2018 marked at Annexure-E, (b) Order dated 08/09.04.2019 marked at Annexure-G.

2. Annexure-E - the observation note is issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries -1, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore- respondent No.3.

3. Order at Annexure-G is issued by respondent No.1-

the, the Managing Director of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore (for short 'KSRTC'), and entrusting disciplinary enquiry to respondent No.3 Additional Registrar of Enquires -1, Karnataka Lokayukta.

4. The petitioner is an employee of KSRTC. The petition is filed on the premise that the First Respondent has no authority to entrust the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner to the Lokayukta, and the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to conduct a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner.

5. In the alternative, assuming that first respondent has the authority to entrust the disciplinary inquiry to Lokayukta, then also the order violates principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order at Annexure – G entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to respondent No.3.

6. Thus, two questions arise for consideration.

(a) Whether the disciplinary authority under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, can entrust the disciplinary enquiry against its employee to an outside agency like Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act

1984?

(b) Whether the authority under the Karnataka Lokayukta has the jurisdiction to hold the disciplinary enquiry against an employee of a KSRTC in case the disciplinary authority under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, entrusts such enquiry.

Brief facts:

7. A complaint is filed against the petitioner, not by the employer or anyone working under the employer, but by an outsider, alleging certain misconduct. The complaint was addressed to the Lokayukta.

8. Acting on the complaint, the observation note referred to in Annexure-E is issued to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the said note, denying the allegations. Thereafter, Upalokayukta submitted a report on 13.11.2018 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'Act, 1984'), to respondent No.1. Acting on the said report, respondent No.1 has entrusted the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner to respondent No.3, vide Annexure-G, which is impugned in the petition.

9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of the Act of 1984 and the Karnataka State