- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7803 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI.T.S SHIVARAMU S/O SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TREASURY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001. 3. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING. BANGALORE -560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADV. FOR R3) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE KSAT BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2023 PASSED IN A.NO-1883/2022 (ANNEXURE-A); B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT IN A.NO-1883/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE A.NO-1883/2022 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel Sri. Satish K., for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for respondent No.3. 2. Under challenge in the instant petition is an order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Application No.1883/2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, whereby, the application of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 petitioner that was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of orders dated 16.04.2022 and 12.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1, has been dismissed. On 16.04.2022, the respondent No.1 had ordered a detailed investigation into the allegations against the petitioner by referring the same to the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 7 (2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 19841. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer on 01.09.2010 in the respondent No.2 Department and was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Treasury on 31.05.2016. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the respondent No.2 Department where he worked as the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Kanakapura from 07.07.2017 to 22.01.2021. While working there, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath of the Ramanagar on 20.01.2021 alleging that 1 Act, 1984 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 the petitioner demanded illegal gratification from the Panchayath Development Officers working under him. On the same day, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Executive Officer. A detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations. 4. It is stated that the respondent No.1 initiated departmental proceedings vide charge memo dated 13.07.2021. The sole charge against him was that he was demanding illegal gratification from the Panchayath Development Officers who were working under him. The show cause notice was replied to, denying the charge. By order dated 13.10.2021, a retired District/Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer entered into the enquiry on 13.01.2022 and had examined the witnesses PW.1 to PW.9 and it is stated that the enquiry was on the verge of completion. It is then, that the impugned order of 16.04.2022 was passed by respondent No.1 referring the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 matter to the respondent No.3 to hold investigation under Section 7(2-A) of the Act, 1984. The aforesaid order of the Government of 16.04.2022 came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which case was dismissed by means of the impugned order of 20.03.2023. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation leveled in the charge memo dated 13.07.2021 and the allegations set out in the impugned order of 16.04.2022 are identical and similar. The Enquiry Officer had commenced the enquiry and the enquiry was at an advanced stage and therefore the order of the Government – respondent No.1 referring the matter to the Upa-Lokayukta under Section 7(2-A) of the Act 1984 is wholly illegal, as it amounts to conducting the entire enquiry de novo. It is stated that the action of the respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 Appeal) Rules, 19572 and the case of the petitioner is covered by the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court namely in the matters of K.R.Deb Vs. The Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong3; Union Of India And Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana4; and Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union Of India And Another5. 6. It is his contention that the petitioner has been prejudiced inasmuch as the enquiry being at the verge of completion, a de novo enquiry would entail the very witnesses who were already examined and cross- examined before the Enquiry Officer would again have to go through the same exercise, thereby indefinitely delaying the conclusion of the inquiry. Certain judgments of the Apex Court have also been referred to. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has sought to defend the order of the 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1957’ 3 (1971) 2 SCC 102 4 (2006) 12 SCC 28 5 (2014) 10 SCC 589 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 respondent No.1 on the ground that under the Act, 1984, it was the duty of the Government in view of the serious charges of corruption against the petitioner to have referred the matter for investigation before the Upa- Lokayukta who can comprehensively undertake the investigation and enquiry and make such recommendations for proceeding against the petitioner both under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19886 as well as recommend disciplinary inquiry. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also referred to the provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957 in support of his contention. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. We have given due consideration to the submissions advanced and have perused the record of the 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1988’ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 case. The translated copies of the documents are also available on record. 10. As noted above, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was initiated by issuance of the charge sheet aforesaid. A perusal of the charge sheet which has been filed as Annexure-A3 reflects that it bears the date of 13.07.2020. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the correct date is 13.07.2021. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. The contents of the said charge sheet as translated reads as follows: “Government of Karnataka Number: GRAAP 67 VISEBI 2021 Secretariat of the Government of Karnataka, Multi-storied Building, Bangalore, Date: 13.07.2021 By Registered Post/Through Acknowledgment Due Notice under Rule-11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957 Mr. Shivaramu T.S, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 (currently suspended), it is proposed to conduct an inquiry against you concerning the dereliction of duty committed during your tenure here, in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. A specific and clear list of allegations of misconduct against you, along with the explanation of each allegation, and the list of documents and evidence supporting the allegations are attached herewith as Annexures 01 to 04. You are given an opportunity to submit your written defense statement within 15 days of receiving this notice. If you wish to present your oral statement, you are allowed to do so. If no defensive statement is received from you within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say regarding the said charges, and further action will be taken under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, (Balappa) Under Secretary to the Government (SE-B) Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj To:- Mr. Shivaramu T.S.No: 44, Akshaya Prakash Nilaya, 4th Floor, Bikasipura, 2nd Main Road, Near ISRO Layout, Near Bank of Baroda, Bangalore. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 ***Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Ramanagara – It is requested to issue a direct show cause notice to the accused and ensure acknowledgement is obtained and sent to the government without fail.” Annexure–1 Charges against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District (Currently Suspended) (Summary) Charge–1 Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, currently suspended from service, on the allegation of demanding a 3% commission from the Panchayat Development Officers of Kanakapura Taluk to the central office which is recorded in voice records. As a responsible government officer, you have shown irresponsibility in government duty and committed dereliction of duty. Due to this, you are charged with negligence in duty, showing irresponsibility, and behaving in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, violating Rule 3, sub-rule (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021. Charge–2 Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, currently suspended from service, has exerted pressure on the Panchayat Development Officers of Kanakapura Taluk to give money out of funds released for various departmental schemes, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 as per written complaints dated 18.01.2021 and 28.01.2021 by the Panchayat Development Officers. As a responsible government officer, you have shown irresponsibility in government duty by exerting pressure for illegal money. Due to this, you are charged with negligence in duty, showing irresponsibility, and behaving in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, violating Rule 3, sub-rule (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021. Yours faithfully, (Balappa) Under Secretary to the Government Services (BC) Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj 11. Extracts from the translated copy of Annexure- A7, in which the Government order of 16.04.2022 appears, are as follows: “Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka Subject: Referral of the case against Shri T.S. Shivarama, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura (originally from the Finance Department), for investigation to the Honorable Upalokayukta under Section 7(2)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. ………………………………. ……………………………… …………… …………………….. The government has thoroughly reviewed the investigation report and documents from the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau. It has been preliminarily established from phone call recordings that Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, Executive Officer, demanded a percentage of bribes on M.C. bills for the supply of materials for various Narega projects undertaken within the Gram Panchayat jurisdiction as well as on wage bills of laborers for project works from the Panchayat Development Officers of Chakanahalli Gram Panchayat and Narayanapura Gram Panchayat. Additionally, it has been observed in the investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau that there are allegations of substandard work conducted under Narega projects in Kanakapura Taluk, pressure to give money oy of funds released under various departmental schemes and obtaining higher amount bills for low-cost works, causing a loss to the government treasury. The allegations in the case are of a serious nature, and it appears that the Panchayat Development Officers and non-official members are involved, and there is a prima facie misuse of government funds and authority. Therefore, it has been decided that a detailed investigation into the case is necessary. Consequently, the government has decided to refer the case for a detailed investigation into the allegations against Shri T.S. Shivarama, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, to the Honorable Upalokayukta under Section 7(2)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Accordingly, this subsequent order is issued. Government Order No: GRAAP 77 VISEBI 2021, Bangalore, Date: 16.04.2022. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 In light of the reasons detailed in the preamble, the government has ordered a detailed investigation into the allegations against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura (originally from the Finance Department), to be referred to the Honorable Upa Lokayukta under Section 7(2)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. By order of the Governor of Karnataka and in his name, (Balappa) Under Secretary to Government (Se-B&C), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.” 12. The impugned order of 12.05.2022 which is enclosed as Annexure-A13 to the petition has been translated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, extracts of which read as follows: “Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka Subject: Regarding withdrawal of the charge sheet and the order appointing the inquiry officer and the presenting officer related to the departmental inquiry against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura (originally from the Finance Department). …………. ……………….. ……………….. …………. ……………….. ……………….. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 The government thoroughly reviewed the said investigation report and documents and it was found that the Police Superintendent, Anti- Corruption Bureau, had taken up the investigation regarding the same allegations as mentioned in the charge sheet issued in serial number (1) against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura. The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s investigation report prima facie established from phone call recordings (audio clips) that Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, Executive Officer, demanded a percentage bribe on M.C. bills for materials supplied and wage bills of laborers for various Narega project works undertaken in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. The allegations published in newspapers regarding substandard work in Narega projects within the Kanakapura Taluk jurisdiction, exerting pressure to provide funds from grants released under various departmental schemes, and taking bills under low-cost projects to cause loss to the government treasury were prima facie established in the investigation conducted by the Anti- Corruption Bureau. The allegations are of a serious nature, involving Panchayat Development Officers and non-official members and the widespread misuse of government funds and authority was evident, necessitating a detailed investigation into the case. In light of the order read in serial number (5), the case concerning the allegations against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, is referred to the Honorable Upa Lokayukta under Section 7(2)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, for a detailed investigation. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 In this context, conducting two separate disciplinary proceedings simultaneously for uniform allegations would be against the rules. Therefore, the government has decided to suspend the departmental inquiry process initiated by implementing the charge sheet in serial number (2) concerning the allegations against Mr. T.S. Shivaramu, former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, and to withdraw the order read in serial number (3) appointing the presenting officer and inquiry officer. Accordingly, the following order is issued. Government Order No: GRAAPA 67 VISEBI 2021, Bangalore, Date: 12.05.2022. In light of the details outlined in the preamble, the departmental inquiry process initiated by issuing the charge sheet dated 13.07.2021 against Shri T.S. Shivaram, Former Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, is hereby ordered to be suspended with immediate effect. Additionally, the charge sheet dated 13.07.2021, read at serial number (2), and the order dated 13.10.2021, appointing the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer, read at serial number (3), are hereby revoked with immediate effect. By order of the Governor of Karnataka and in his name, (Balappa) Under Secretary to Government (Se-BC), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 13. On perusal of the charge sheet dated 13.07.2021 that was initially issued to the petitioner in respect of the departmental proceeding and impugned government orders of 16.04.2022 and 12.05.2022 reflect that the allegations are similar. As a matter of fact, perusal of the aforesaid two Government orders reflect that an investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ramanagar Police Station into the complaint received against the petitioner. He submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Central Zone. Various newspaper reports are also referred to in the aforesaid orders and permission was sought from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Act, 1988 to proceed with an investigation/enquiry against the petitioner. Subsequently by the impugned Government order, a detailed investigation into the case was directed to be done by the Upa-Lokayukta. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 14. Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 7 of the Act, 1984 begins with the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action taken by or with joint or general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the State Government. Under the provisions of the Act, 1984, powers are given for issuance of search warrant and seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, recording of evidence or collecting evidence under Section 11 with its report being furnished under Section 12. The recommendations may be made by the Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta in their report. It is within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Section 14, if satisfied after investigation into any complaint regarding a public servant having committed any criminal offence and that would require prosecution in a court of law, to pass an order to that effect and initiate prosecution of the public servant concerned and if prior sanction of any authority is - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 required for such prosecution, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted by the appropriate authority on the date of such order. It is pertinent to mention here that after the competent authority receives the report from the Lokayukta under Section 12, it is mandated to examine the report and within three months from the date of receipt of the report, intimate to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the procedure for imposing major penalty is provided in Rule 11 of Rules, 1957. Rule 11-A of Rules, 1957 provides for action on the enquiry report. Under Rule 11-A, inter alia, if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that one or more of the major/minor penalties specified in Rule 8 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12 make an order imposing such penalty. Provided that in every case, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the enquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice on the penalties proposed to be imposed on the Government servant and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. The ‘Commission’ in Rule 2 is stated to be the Karnataka Public Service Commission. Rule 12 provides the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 13 provides for common proceeding for disciplinary action where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case. 16. The Rules, 1957 came to be amended on 07.05.1986 by the substitution of Rule 14-A. The provision of Rule 14-A reads as under: “14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta. – (1) The provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rules 9 to 11-A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government Servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayuukta or an Uplokayukta either under the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on reference from Government or where offences alleged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21st day of December, 1992. (2) (a) Where on investigation into any allegation against – (i) a member of the State Civil Services Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’; or (ii) a member of the State Civil Services Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ and a member of the State Civil Services Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’; or (iii) a member of the State Civil Services Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’, the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta or (before the 21- 12-1992) the Inspector General of Police of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police is of the opinion, that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall forward the record of the investigation along with his recommendation to the Government and the Government after examining such record, may either direct an inquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or direct the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with rule 12. (b) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry into a case under clause (a) the enquiry may be conducted either by the Lokayukta or the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 Upalokayukta, as the case may be, or an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorized by the Lokayukta, or the Upalokayukta to conduct the inquiry: Provided that the inquiry shall not be conducted by an officer lower in rank than that of Government servant against whom it is held: Provided further that an inquiry against a Government Servant not lower in rank than that of a Deputy Commissioner shall not be conducted by any person other than the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or an Additional Registrar (Inquiries): Provided also that an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorized to conduct an inquiry under clause (b) shall not have the power to appoint another officer to conduct it wholly or in part. (c) The Lokayukta, the Upalokayukta or the Officer authorized under clause (b) to conduct an inquiry shall conduct it in accordance with the provisions of rule 11 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this rule and for that purpose shall have the powers of the Disciplinary Authority referred to in the said Rule. (d) After the inquiry is completed, the record of the case along with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and the recommendation of the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the case may be, shall be sent to the Government. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 (e) On receipt of the record under clause (d) the Government shall take action in accordance with the provisions of [x x x x] rule 11-A and in all such cases the Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 8. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall be applicable to members of the Karnataka Judicial Service or Government servants under the administrative control of such members or of the High Court of Karnataka. Explanation. – In this rule, the expressions “Lokayukta” and “Upalokayukta” shall respectively have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and the expression “Karnataka Lokayukta Police” means the Police Wing established under Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and includes, so far as may be, the corresponding establishment under the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission Rules, 1980 and the expression “Inspector General of Police” shall be construed accordingly.” 17. From perusal of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A of Rules, 1957 above, it appears that after an investigation into any allegation against a member of the State Civil Services (in the instant case, belonging to Group ‘A’), where the concerned authority is of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall forward - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 the record of the investigation along with his recommendation to the Government and the Government after examining such record, may either direct enquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta OR direct the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12. 18. Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A of Rules, 1957 would have to be read in the light of the various other Clauses appearing in Sub-Rule (2). As noted aforesaid, where the matter is referred for investigation by the State Government under Section 7(2-A) of the Act, 1984, then after an investigation, it is the Government that would direct an enquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta OR direct the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12, as provided in clause (a) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957. The word ‘OR’ used after Upa- Lokayukta appearing as aforesaid is disjunctive, that is to say that the enquiry that the Government may direct to be - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 conducted by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta would be an enquiry pursuant to which major penalty can be imposed under Rule 11 by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1957. However, the appropriate Disciplinary Authority who is competent to initiate enquiry under the Rules, 1957 can be directed by the Government to take action only with regard to an enquiry for imposing minor penalty under Rule 12. 19. The aforesaid distinction drawn in Rule 14-A between the powers of the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta on one hand, and the powers of a Disciplinary Authority on the other hand, is further fortified by perusal of the Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14-A. Therefore, the procedure prescribed under Rule 14-A of the aforesaid Rules, 1957 in relation to matters that are entrusted/referred to Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta divests the Disciplinary Authority of the authority to conduct inquiry which would lead to the imposition of major penalty. Hence, the Government orders impugned - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 will have to be viewed in the light of the provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957. 20. The authority of the Government to refer the matter to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta under the provisions of Section 7(2-A) of the Act, 1984 is undisputed. The provision of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957, as noted above was substituted on 07.05.1986 with effect from 07.05.1986 and the Act 1984 came into force on 15.01.1986. Therefore, the decision of the Government to introduce the provision of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957 consequent to the implementation of the Act, 1984 was a conscious one with the intention to implement the Act, 1984 in letter and spirit. In our considered opinion, the provisions of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957 have to be given full effect so that the intent and implementation of provisions of the Act, 1984 are effectuated with full vigour. 21. It is not the case in the instant petition that the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner was completed. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 No report has yet been submitted. As a matter of fact, only nine witnesses on behalf of the respondent No.1 had testified. Nothing has been stated in the petition as to the number of witnesses that the petitioner proposed to examine in the disciplinary enquiry. The arguments had not been advanced. Just because the enquiry had reached an advanced stage, it cannot be stated that it caused any prejudice to the petitioner. As noted aforesaid, it is the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta who may be directed by the Government to undertake an enquiry, where imposition of major penalty is contemplated in view of Rule 14-A of the Rules, 1957. 22. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are based on different facts and as such are inapplicable in the instant case. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law as it stands, we must reject the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30573-DB WP No. 7803 of 2023 24. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1