The State lacked jurisdiction to refer disciplinary inquiries against employees of aided institutions to the Lokayukta without proper authority or direction.

CAV ORDER

Petitioner, retired Head Mistress (In-charge) of Viveka Vardhini High School, an aided Institution is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of .Er India questioning the Government Order bearing Bengaluru dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure-L) under which enquiry against the petitioner is entrusted to the second respondent under Rule 214(2)(b) of the KCSR read with Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, ‘1983 Act’) and Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’); the petitioner has also questioned the articles of charge dated 14.02.2019 bearing No.

issued by the third respondent on the ground of jurisdiction of the State to entrust the enquiry to the second respondent and consequential issuance of charge memo by the third respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, one Sri.S.Nagaraju, retired Second Division Assistant (SDA) of Viveka Vardhini High School filed a complaint before the second respondent against the petitioner as well as Block Education Officer, Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the Secretary of Viveka Vardhini High School alleging non-settlement of his pensionary benefits intentionally by misusing their official position by way of corrupt practice. On investigation, the second respondent submitted report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’) dated 31.01.2017 to the first respondent State Government. Considering the said report, the first respondent-State Government under impugned order dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure-L), entrusted the enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSRs read with Section 101 of 1983 Act and Rule 14A of CCA Rules to the 2^nd respondent-Lokayukta. In pursuance to the entrustment, third respondent was nominated as Enquiry Officer and in turn, he issued articles of charge dated 14.02.2019. Questioning the Government order entrusting the enquiry to the second respondent and consequential articles of charge issued by the third respondent, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.R.K.Prathibha for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers including the statement of objections filed by the first respondent – State. No statement of objections are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner would submit that the entire action of the State as well as second and third respondents in entrusting enquiry as well as issuance of articles of charge is one without jurisdiction. He submits that the petitioner is an employee of aided institution of Viveka Vardhini High School and in respect of the petitioner, Management is the Appointing Authority. He submits that the first respondent – State Government has no jurisdiction or control over the petitioner. It is submitted that the first respondent-State Government is neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority insofar as the petitioner is concerned. In that circumstance, he submits that Rule 214 of KCSRs would have no application to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is governed by 1983 Act and under 1983 Act, there is no provision to entrust the enquiry to second respondent – Lokayukta. Learned counsel would submit that Section 101 of 1983 Act referred to in the impugned order confers power on the Government to direct the Governing Council to take action and if the Governing Council fails to take action, Government