The State Government lacks jurisdiction to invoke Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules to entrust disciplinary enquiries to the Lokayukta for employees of statutory entities like the Karnataka Slum Development Board, as Rule 14-A applies exclusively to Government servants.

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER OF ENTRUSTMENT OF INQUIRY DATED 06.03.2019 OF GOVERNMENT AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“(a) QUASH Order of Government bearing No. VaEe 11 KoMumSe 2017 dated: 06.03.2019 (under Annexure-V to the writ petition) issued by the 1st Respondent by issue of writ in the nature of certiorari and grant all consequential benefits.

(b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.”

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the 2nd respondent – Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB) in the year 1989 and thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1999 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2011. During the year 2013, pursuant to the complaint given against the petitioner, an Inspection committee after conducting inspection, submitted a report in the year 2015. Thereafter, the Investigating officer of the Technical Wing of the Lokayuktha conducted one more inspection, on the basis of which, on 14.03.2017, the Upalokayuktha submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act,1984, against six officers including the petitioner. Thereafter, 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 26.05.2018 to the 2nd respondent – KSDB seeking information about the report submitted by the Upalokayuktha, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent gave information as sought for by the 1st respondent that there was no fault with the KSDB employees, in addition to which, the 2nd respondent – KSDB issued a communication dated 06.06.2018 to the petitioner and others seeking their remarks on the report submitted by the Upalokayuktha. On 06.09.2018, the 1st respondent-State sought reports of spot inspection from the Technical Wing of the Lokayuktha. When the things stood thus, the 1st respondent-State vide Annexure-V dated 06.03.2019, invoked Rule 14A of the CCA Rules 1957 and entrusted the matter to the 3rd respondent – Lokayuktha for enquiry, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for 1st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

4. 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 petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent – KSDB and was a public servant but was not a Government servant, to whom Rule 14A of the CCA Rules was not applicable and the Government is not being a competent authority to invoke Rule 14A of CCA Rules and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-V dated 06.03.2019 passed by the 1st respondent – State entrusting an enquiry to the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.G.Padmanabha & others vs. State of Karnataka & others – W.P.No.50413/2019 dated 22.11.2022 and the order of the co-ordinate Bench is Court in the case of N.P.Balaraju vs. State of Karnataka & others –