- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 3477 OF 2023 (GM-KLA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8669 OF 2022 (S-DE) WRIT PETITION NO. 11391 OF 2023 (S-R) IN WP No. 3477/2023 BETWEEN: 1. N G CHENNIGARAYA AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE GENDAPPA, R/O 57/A, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MANOVANA PARK, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. PRESENTLY: DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. FORMERLY: DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHARADI S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, HAJJ AND WAQF, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 12TH FLOOR, MAIN TOWER, VISWESHWARAYA CENTRE, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY REGISTRAR, MS BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA S HEDDURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 22/12/2022 IN ENQUIRY NO.UPLOK- 2/DE/85/2020/ARE-3 PASSED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA/RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-P, ETC. IN WP NO. 8669/2022: BETWEEN: 1. N G CHENNIGARAYA AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE GENDAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 R/O 57/A, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MANOVANA PARK, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040. PRESENTLY: DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KARWAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT FORMERLY: DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD MANDYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE HAJJ AND WAQF GOVT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD 12TH FLOOR, MAIN TOWER, VISWESWARAYA CENTRE DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE -560 001. 3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP BY REGISTRAR M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA S HEDDURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTRUSTMENT OF A DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY BY R-1 DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, HAJJI AND WAQF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IN GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD.30.4.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE R-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, ETC. IN WP NO. 11391/2023: BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANNIGARAYA N G PRESENTLY AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE GENDAPPA R/A 57/A FIRST CROSS,FIRST MAIN MANOVANA PARK VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, HAJJ AND WAQF, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 12TH FLOOR, MAIN TOWER, VISWESHARYA CENTRE DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 4. OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU, BENGALURU ZONE, (KARNATAKA) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVANA NO.13 RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BENGALURU-560 025. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, AGA FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4; SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA S HEDDURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 07.05.2023 ISSUED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-D REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RELEASE OF PROVIDENT FUND AS WELL AS PENSION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT R4 TO RELEASE THE PROVIDENT FUND AND ALSO PENSION AFTER DEDUCTING 10 PERCENT OF PENSION AMOUNT AS PER THE ORDER DTD 30.12.2022 PASSED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. All these three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner since retired was working as a District Manager, the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited (for short 'KMDCL')-respondent No.2. The challenge in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 these writ petitions is regarding entrusting the enquiry to Lokayukta, and thereafter, the enquiry report and consequential punishment order inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of Lokayukta. 2. As per the Punishment Order dated 30.12.2022, Lokayukta has recommended for withholding of 10% of pension payable to the petitioner for a period of five years and also to recover the sum of Rs.36,170/- from the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. The Competent Authority i.e., respondent No.2, the Managing Director of the KMDCL has accepted the recommendation and imposed the penalty as recommended by the Lokayukta vide order dated 15.11.2023. 3. Initially, the Corporation itself proceeded against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and submitted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 the report (vide Annexure-C). The enquiry officer was a retired District and Sessions Judge. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report dated 22.12.2018 finding that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. It appears that respondent No.2 considered the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, and was of the opinion that, in view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the departmental proceedings, the case against the petitioner should be closed. 4. The said recommendation of the Managing Director for closing the case against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report dated 22.12.2018 submitted by the enquiry officer was not accepted by the Government and vide the order dated 30.04.2020, entrusted the enquiry in respect of the same allegation under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (KCS (CCA) Rules) to the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Lokayukta framed charges against the petitioner on 29.10.2020 and the enquiry officer submitted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 the report dated 22.12.2022 (at Annexure-P). The Upalokayukta, the respondent No.3 after considering the report made the recommendation dated 30.12.2022 for inflicting the punishment of withholding of 10% pension amount for a period of five years and recovery of Rs.36,170/- from the salary of the petitioner. 5. The Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited has adopted the Kerala Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 in respect of the disciplinary matters viz. suspension, enquiry, procedure, for inflicting minor and major penalty, joint enquiry, special procedure, appeals and consideration of appeals. It is evident from the Rules framed by the Board of Directors of Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited in respect of the appointments and service conditions of the staff of the Karnataka Minority Development Corporation Limited which are called the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited (Recruitment and Conditions of Services), Rules, 2011, KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 have been adopted. The sub-rule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 1 of rule 6 of the said Rules is in respect of the enquiries, penalties and appeals, which reads as under: "6. DICIPLINARY ENQUIRES, PENALTIES AND APPEALS: 1) In respect of disciplinary matter viz., suspension, enquiry, procedure for imposing Minor and Major penalties, Joint enquiry, Special Procedure, appeals and consideration of appeals, the provisions of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 shall Mutatis Mutandis be applicable, EXPLANATION: The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule; (i) Non promotion of an employee on the ground that/he/she is not found suitable; (ii) Reservation to his/her previous post of an employee in accordance with the provisions relating to his/her appointment or the rules or order governing probation. (iii) Compulsory retirement of an employee in accordance with the provisions relating to his/her superannuation or retirement. (iv) Termination of services of an employee under an agreement in accordance with terms of such agreement." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 6. The action on the enquiry report is contemplated under Rule-11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which reads as under: "11A. Action on the inquiry report, - (1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 11 as far as may be. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such dis-agreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings, on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in rule 8 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 12, make an order - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 imposing such penalty; Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry 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." 7. From sub-rule 1 of Rule 11, it is evident that, if the Disciplinary Authority does not agree with the findings in the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, for reasons recorded, the disciplinary authority may remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry, and submission of the enquiry report, and thereafter, it would be incumbent upon the Enquiry Authority or the Enquiry Officer to hold the further enquiry, according to the provisions of Rule 11. The second course of action which is available to the Disciplinary Authority is that, if it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Authority on any Article of charge, it should record its reason for such - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if, the evidence on record is sufficient for that purpose. 8. From the consideration of the Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, it is evident that, once the enquiry official has submitted the report, only two courses of action are available to the Disciplinary Authority as stated above. There is nothing in the Rule which authorizes the disciplinary/competent authority to entrust the enquiry to a new enquiry officer. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY SHANKAR PANDE vs. UNION OF INDIA (2014) 10 SCC 589, after considering the earlier judgments on the point, while considering the para-materia rules i.e., The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules), in Paragraph 24 and 25 held as under: "24. Be that as it may, the question is whether the disciplinary authority could have resorted to such a practice of abandoning the enquiry already - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 undertaken and resort to appointment of a fresh enquiring authority (multi-member)? The issue is not really whether the enquiring authority should be a single member or a multi-member body, but whether a second inquiry such as the one under challenge is permissible. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K.R. Deb v. CCE10, examined the question in the context of Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was a case where an enquiry was ordered against a Sub-Inspector, Central Excise (the appellant before this Court). The enquiry officer held that the charge was not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority appointed another enquiry officer "to conduct a supplementary open inquiry". Such supplementary inquiry was conducted and a report that there was "no conclusive proof to "establish the charge" was made. Not satisfied, the disciplinary authority thought it fit that "another enquiry officer should be appointed to inquire afresh into the charge". 25. The Court in K.R. Deb held that: (SCC p. 105, paras 12-13) "12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the inquiring officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 13. In our view the Rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on 13-2- 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the Rules but was harassing to the appellant and allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb." 10. Thus, considering the explicit text of the Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY (supra), we are of the view that entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Section - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34543-DB WP No. 3477 of 2023 C/W WP No. 8669 of 2022 WP No. 11391 of 2023 14A, after the enquiry officer had submitted the enquiry report in the domestic enquiry, was against the mandate of Rule 11A of the KCS (CCA) Rules. As the entrustment of the enquiry under Rule 14A falls outside the purview of Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, we set aside the entrustment order dated 30.04.2020 of the enquiry and consequential proceedings, viz the enquiry report dated 22.12.2022, recommendation dated 30.12.2022 and the punishment order dated 15.11.2023 imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, we allow these writ petitions, however without cost. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5