REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dtd. 26/4/2019 in Application No.1892/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereunder the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the third respondent, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture with liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on the recommendation dtd. 6/1/2017 (Annexure-A10) of the Upa-Lokayukta and to pass orders in accordance with law.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the second respondent-State Government under Government Order dtd. 23/12/2009 (Annexure-A1) entrusted the enquiry against respondent No.3 to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'CCA Rules'). In terms of the said entrustment order, the Enquiry Officer nominated by the Upa-Lokayukta issued articles of charge dtd. 25/8/2010 and after detailed enquiry, enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta was submitted to the State Government. The third respondent being the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report to the fourth respondent and thereafter third respondent passed impugned order of punishment at Annexure-A14 dtd. 26/3/2019, imposing punishment of dismissal on the fourth respondent in exercise of power under Rule 8(viii) of the CCA Rules. The fourth respondent questioning the said order of dismissal was before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.1892/2019. The Tribunal under impugned order dtd. 26/4/2019 on the ground that the Director of Agriculture nor the Commissioner of Department of Agriculture have no locus standi to issue second show cause notice and consequent impugned order of dismissal, quashed the impugned order only on the ground of incompetency with liberty to the first respondent-Government to take action in accordance with law. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.