- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH 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, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES -1, LOKAYUKTA ENQURIES, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, 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 R Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 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 Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971'), would contend that respondent No.1 has no authority to delegate the disciplinary enquiry. It is urged that respondent No.3 has no authority to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, who is not a Government Servant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.F.Hudedavar vs. State of Karnataka and others1 to 1 W.P.No.12300/2020 and connected matters - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 contend that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the KSRTC, which is established under a Statute. 12. Referring to paragraph No.31 of the aforementioned judgment, it is urged that the petitioner is not a Government servant and the Lokayukta will not have any jurisdiction over the petitioner to conduct disciplinary enquiry. 13. Learned counsel would also refer to paragraph No.24 of the judgment to contend that Rule 3(1)(d) of (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCA Rules') would also exclude the petitioner and the like from the ambit of provisions of the Act of 1984. 14. In the alternative, it is urged that before entrusting the disciplinary enquiry, the disciplinary authority was required to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as the said order affects the rights of the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would defend the order and urged that respondent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 No.1 has the authority to entrust the disciplinary enquiry against the KSRTC employee to the Lokayukta. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 referring to Regulation 23 of Regulations, 1971 would contend that the said Regulation enables the disciplinary authority to hold disciplinary enquiry by himself or to entrust the disciplinary enquiry to any other authority. 17. It is his further submission that the expression "under this Regulation" in Regulation 23 has to be understood as an entrustment provided in Regulation 23, and the disciplinary authority is competent to entrust the disciplinary enquiry to any other authority. 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would further submit that the definition of Public Servant under Section 2(12)(g) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act of 1984 would also include the employees of a State-Owned Corporation, and the petitioner, being the Employee of a State-Owned Corporation, is a public servant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 19. Referring to Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Act of 1984, it is urged that the Lokayukta has the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint and to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the public servants. 20. Referring to the contentions with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra, it is urged that the protection provided under Rule 3(1)(d) of CCA Rules does not apply to the petitioner as the petitioner is governed under Regulations, 1971, and not governed under CCA Rules. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another2 to urge that Regulations, having the statutory force, have to be construed strictly, and no deviation from the Regulations is permissible. Since the Regulations, 1971, does not specifically provide for 2 AIR 1975 SC 1331 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 entrustment of disciplinary enquiries to an agency like Lokayukta, the entrustment is impermissible. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to paragraph No.36(c) of the judgment in R.F.Hudedavar vs. State of Karnataka and others3 supra wherein reference is made to the judgment in M.P.Jaishankar vs. State of Karnataka4 to contend that where separate service Regulations are framed, without adopting Karnataka Civil Services Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, there cannot be an entrustment of disciplinary enquiry outside the scope of Service Regulations. 23. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 24. Fist question that needs consideration is whether Regulations, 1971 enables the disciplinary authority to entrust the disciplinary enquiry of KSRTC employee to an outside agency. 3 W.P.No.12300/2020 and connected matters 4 WP. Nos.1983-86/2014 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 25. Regulation 23 of Regulations, 1971, reads as under: 23. Procedure for imposing major penalties:- (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (ix) and (x) of Regulation-18 shall be made except after an inquiry, held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this Regulation. (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Corporation servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this Regulation an Authority to inquire into the truth thereof." Explanation: Where the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry; any reference in Sub-Regulation (7) to (20) and in Sub-Regulation (22) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority. (Emphasis supplied) 26. (Emphasis supplied) 26. Sub Regulation (1) of Regulations 23 mandates that no order imposing any penalty specified in Clauses ix and x of Regulation 18 of Regulations, 1971 shall be made except after the enquiry in the manner provided in the Regulation. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 27. Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 23 confers power on the Disciplinary Authority to hold a disciplinary enquiry to ascertain the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Corporation servant. While passing an order for holding a disciplinary enquiry, Sub Regulation (2) confers discretion on the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry by itself or to appoint under this Regulation, an authority to enquire into the truth thereof. 28. There is no quarrel on the implication of Sub Regulation (2) to the extent that the disciplinary enquiry may be held either by the disciplinary authority itself or by some other authority. 29. Whether the expression "an authority" found in Regulation 23 would mean only the authority under Regulations, 1971, would also include an authority like Lokayukta under the Act of 1984. 30. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has urged that the expression “to appoint under this Regulation” appearing in Regulation 23(2) has to be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 understood as the power to appoint in exercise of power under Regulation 23. According to him, it does not mean that it has to be an authority governed by the Regulations, 1971. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the expression "appoint under this Regulation an Authority" in Regulation 23(2) would only mean an authority competent to impose a penalty under the Regulations, 1971 and by necessary implication it has to be an authority under the Regulations, 1971, as no other authority outside the Regulations, 1971, has the power to impose penalty. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged referring to the Schedule to Regulations, 1971, that the delegation is permissible only to the authority which is competent to impose the penalty. 33. The petitioner’s contention does not appear to be correct. The expression used under Regulation 23 (2) is "appoint under this Regulation an Authority" and not "appoint an authority under this Regulation" - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 34. In the expression "appoint under this Regulation an Authority" the stress appears to be on power to appoint under the Regulation, i.e., Regulation 23 or may be under Regulations 1971, and the emphasis is not, as to who should be appointed. 35. The contention that the disciplinary enquiry can be entrusted to only such authority which is competent to impose penalty is also not tenable. 36. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 , the Regulation, 1971 also recognises the enquiring authority which has no power to impose a penalty. The same is noticed in sub-regulations of Regulation 23. 37. Relevant sub-regulations of Regulation 23 are extracted as under: "(21) (a) Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (viii) of Regulation-18 but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (ix) and (x) of regulation-18 has itself inquired into or causes to be inquired into the articles of any charge and that Authority, having regard to its own - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 findings or having regard to its decision or any of the findings of any Inquiring Authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (ix) and (x) of Regulation-18 should be imposed on the employee that Authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such Disciplinary Authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties. (b) The Disciplinary Authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses is necessary in the interest of justice, recall the witness and examine, cross- examine and re-examine the witness and may impose on the Corporation servant such penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these Regulations. (22) xxx. (23) (i). (ii) The Inquiring Authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include- (a) xxx. xxx (25) xxx. (26)xxx." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 38. Above extracted provisions would in unmistakable terms point that the disciplinary authority can entrust the matter to an authority which has no power to impose penalty. Though Schedule to the Regulations 1971, provides for list of authorities who are competent to impose penalty after holding disciplinary authority, this Court is of the view that schedule to the Regulations, 1971, cannot control Regulation 23 of Regulations, 1971, to hold that disciplinary authority cannot entrust disciplinary enquiry to any authority other than the authority named in the Schedule to the Regulations, 1971. 39. Second clause to the proviso to Sub-regulation 23 of Regulation 23, provides that the enquiring authority, if not the disciplinary authority, has to forward to the disciplinary authority the records of enquiry. 40. It is also noticed that the disciplinary authority has the power to agree or disagree with the findings of the enquiring authority and pass an appropriate order of penalty. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 41. Thus, by looking into the Scheme of the Regulations, 1971, there is no difficulty in holding that the disciplinary authority to whom the enquiry is entrusted need not be the authority competent to impose a penalty. 42. Thus, the contention that the delegation has to be only to the Authority under the Regulation, 1971, which is competent to impose a penalty, and Lokayukta, which has no power to impose a penalty, cannot conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the employee of a corporation, cannot be accepted. 43. The Division Bench of this Court in R.F.Hudedavar supra was not dealing with the question on the authority of the disciplinary authority under the Regulations, 1971 to entrust the matter to an outside agency. It was in respect of an entrustment under Rule 14(A) of the CCA Rules, which is entirely different as compared to the Regulations, 1971. 44. The observations made in the case of R.F.Hudedavar supra, as found in paragraph 24 of the said judgment, is in respect of the CCA Rules and not in respect - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 of the Regulations, 1971. Thus, the contention that the persons covered under the Regulations, 1971, are kept out of the purview of entrustment cannot be accepted. 45. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh and others supra to contend that the statutory bodies are governed by the Rules and regulations under which such statutory bodies are constituted and they do not have the freedom to traverse beyond those Rules and Regulations. 46. This Court is of the view that the act of the disciplinary authority entrusting the matter for disciplinary enquiry to an outside agency is not restricted under the Regulations, 1971 and on the other hand, for the reasons already recorded, such power is already recognised under the provisions of Regulations, 1971. Hence, the ratio laid down in the said judgments does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 47. Now the question is whether the Act, 1984 enables the Authority under the Act, 1984 to hold disciplinary enquiry - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 against the employee of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. 48. The Act, 1984 defines the word “public servant” under Section 2(12) of the Act, 1984. Section 2(12)(g)(ii) of Act, 1984 reads as under: 2(12)(ii) “public servant” means a person who is or was at any time, - (a) Xxxxxxxxx (g) A person in the service or pay of, - (i) xxxxx (ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being the local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification, from time to time, specify; 49. There is no dispute that the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is an entity created under a statute enacted by the State Legislature and is fully owned and controlled by the State Government. This being the position, the employee of KSRTC is a “public servant” as defined under Section 2(12) of Act, 1984. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 50. Section 7 of Act, 1984 deals with the matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta. Section 7(1)(b) of Act, 1984 enables the Lokayukta to investigate the complaint involving a grievance or an allegation against the public servant. 51. Section 7(2) of Act, 1984 enables the Upalokayukta to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation against a public servant not referred to in Section 7(1) of Act, 1984. 52. Section 8 of the Act, 1984 deals with the matters which cannot be investigated by Lokayukta or Upalokayukta under the Act, 1984. It is not the case of the petitioner that his case falls under Section 8 of Act, 1984. 53. Under Section 12 of the Act-, 1984, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta are enabled to send a report, after the investigation, to the concerned Competent Authority. 54. As already noticed, the disciplinary authority under the Regulations, 1971, is competent to entrust the matter to an outside agency. And the employee of the Karnataka - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 State Road Transport Corporation is a “public servant” under the Act, 1984 and the Authorities under the Act, 1984 are competent to investigate the complaint or grievance against the “public servant”. 55. As far as contention that the disciplinary authority should have heard the petitioner before entrusting the enquiry to Lokayukta is concerned, no provision of law is pointed out to accept such a contention. Before entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to Lokayukta, first respondent had sent a communication to the petitioner and petitioner has replied to the said communication. Later, pursuant to observation note dated 16.05.2018, response was sought vide letter dated 07.07.2018. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 09.08.2018. This being the position, the contention that the petitioner was not heard before entrusting the matter to 3rd respondent cannot be accepted. 56. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that the disciplinary authority under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24635 WP No. 28554 of 2019 Discipline) Regulations, 1971, is competent to entrust the disciplinary enquiry against its employee to the authorities under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. 57. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38