ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the notification bearing No.BWSSB/CAO-S/16/2011 4525/2011-12 dated 16.01.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957’). He has also sought for quashing of Corrigendum bearing No.¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/16/5349/2011-12 dated 05.03.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 and Articles of Charge bearing No.LOK/INQ/14-A/119/2012 dated 10.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.4 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

2. The petitioner was working as a Water Meter recorder in the respondent No.2 at Frazer Town, Bengaluru. Based on a complaint that the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification for some official work, a trap was laid by the respondent No.3. The trap was successful and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the respondent No.1 which forwarded it to the respondent No.2 for needful action. The respondent No.2 in terms of the impugned order dated 16.01.2012, entrusted the enquiry to respondent No.3 under Rule 14A of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the provisions of the KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 are not applicable as he was not a Government servant. He also contends that the Court of the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.A), Bengaluru (C.C.H. No.79) (henceforth referred to as ‘the Criminal Court’) in Special C.C No.344/2010 had acquitted the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 on the very same allegations and involving the very same witnesses. He, therefore, contends that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and that it would be an empty formality as the complainant has expired and all the other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. In support of his first contention, he has relied upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.12300/2020 and connected cases (disposed off on 23.07.2021). In support of his second contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [1999(3) SCC 679]. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 be set at nought.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections and the relevant portion of the same is extracted below:

“1. …… This respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Meter Reader under this respondent Board. One Sri Kumar S/o Parashuram lodged a complaint on 04/09/2010 before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bangalore stating that about three months prior to 04/09/2010, he received a water bill for Rs.6000/- and during the month of June, 2010 he had been to the office of the respondent Board wherein he met the petitioner, working as Meter Reader in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, W-4 Sub-Division, BWSSB, West of Chord Road, Bangalore and enquired him about the water Bill for Rs.6000/-; the petitioner informed him that his was a non-domestic connection and to get it converted into domestic connection, he had to credit the bill amount of Rs.6000/- and to give him the receipt for having credited the bill amount