A disciplinary authority must independently apply its mind and critically examine all relevant records before entrusting an inquiry to an external agency. Abdicating this discretionary power to the dictates of another body without such examination renders the entrustment order invalid and legally unsustainable.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 08.11.2024 VIDE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. UDD 96 MNU 2022 PASSED BYTHE R-1 GOVERNMENT BY ENTRUSTING THE INQUIRY TO THE R-3 LOKAYUKTHA UNDER RULE 14-A OF THE CCA RULES AS PER ANNX-A IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 vide Government Order No.UDD 96 MNU 2022 passed by the 1st respondent – Government by entrusting the inquiry to the 3rd respondent Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules as per Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

b) To grant such other or further relief/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 08.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1-State under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, is erroneous, arbitrary or without jurisdiction of law inasmuch as, the petitioner was not an employee of respondent No.1 – State but was working as Assistant Executive Engineer of respondent No.2 – BBMP who was entitled/authorized/empowered to pass the impugned order and not respondent No.1 – State and the impugned order deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner by the Lokayukta is laconic, cryptic, unreasoned, non speaking order with absolutely no application of mind, which deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that respondent No.1 – State has specifically referred to the communication/letters/correspondence dated 15.10.2022, 30.01.2024 and 12.08.2024 addressed by the respondent –State to the BBMP, where petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. It is specifically recorded in the impugned order that the BBMP had not submitted any documents sought for by the State Government. It is well settled that for the purpose of passing the order under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind before entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta and any order passed by the Disciplinary Authority without application of mind deserves to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. – W.P.No.205398/2019 dated 24.02.2020, wherein it is held as under:

“Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2019 passed in application No.2127/2017 whereby the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) rejected the challenge to the entrustment of enquiry into the hands of the 2nd respondent Lokayukta by the 1st respondent-Government, the instant writ petition is filed.

2. The material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are as follows:

The Water Resources Department introduced a project called Mullamari Irrigation Project in Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District, to provide water faciliti