SMT. R. MALATHI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 3-10-2016 (Annexure-S) and 22-12-2016 (Annexure-T) passed by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Annexure-S is a report of the Upa-lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the said Act' for short) recommending to the Competent Authority to initiate the enquiry proceedings against the petitioners and for the entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Annexure-T is the order entrusting enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta.

(2.) Sri Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.T. Kumar for the petitioners submits that the copies of the complaints filed by one Saidutta are not furnished to the petitioners. He submits that the requirements of Section 9(3)(a) of the said Act are not complied with. In support of his submission, he relies on this Court's decision in the case of N. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar. 223. Section 9(3)(a) of the said Act reads as follows:

(3.) Nextly he argues that the Competent Authority has not considered the petitioners' reply filed before the Enquiry Officer. He submits that the impugned order, dated 22-12-2016 (Annexure-T) is not a speaking order; it is not reflective of the application of mind; he contends that every State action has to be informed by reasons; any act uninformed by reasons is arbitrary and hence violative of the rule of law. For advancing this submission, he relies upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Others, (2012)4 SCC 407.