Karnataka High Court
Director vs The Registrar on 17 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
®
WRIT APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2025 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2025 (S-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2025 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.15/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDINGS
Digitally DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
signed by BANGALORE-560001
VASANTHA
KUMARY B ...APPELLANT
K
Location: (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
HIGH
COURT OF SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O AND M DIVISION
BESCOM
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
KA AND SHA DIVISION OFFICE
BESCOM, KOLAR-563101
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
T L AND S S DIVISION
KOLAR/CHINTAMANI/DODDABALLAPURA
KOLAR-563101
5. DEPUTY CONTROL OF ACCOUNTS
O AND M CIRCLE
BESCOM, KOLAR-563101
6. SRI RAVINDRA REDDY V
S/O SRI VENKATREDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
MECHANIC-GRADE 2, BESCOM
O AND M-1
CHIKKABALLAPURA URBAN DIVISION
R/AT NARAYANACHARYA BUILDING
PRASHANTH NAGAR, WARD NO.4
BEHIND SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560009
(IMPLEADED V/O DT. 18.02.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
SRI M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-7)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.22476/2021 AND ETC.
IN WA NO.19/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDINGS
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001
3. MR. IBRAHIM N
SON OF MR BUDEN SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
O AND M, CITY SUB DIVISION
MESCOM, SAGAR
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560009
(IMPLEADED V/O DT. 18.02.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.16791/2023 AND ETC.
IN WA NO.266/2025
BETWEEN:
1. DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
O AND M DIVISION
BESCOM
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
KA AND SHA DIVISION OFFICE
BESCOM, KOLAR -563101
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
T L AND S S DIVISION
KOLAR/CHINTAMANI/DODDABALLAPURA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
KOLAR-563101
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
5. DEPUTY CONTROL OF ACCOUNTS
O AND M CIRCLE
BESCOM, KOLAR 563101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001
2. SRI RAVINDRA REDDY V
S/O SRI VENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
MECHANIC GRADE -2
BESCOM, O & M-1
CHIKKABALLAPURA URBAN DIVISION
R/AT NARAYANACHARA BUILDING
PRASHANTH NAGAR, WARD NO.4
BEHIND SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED IN W.P.
NO.22476/2021 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. These writ appeals have been filed impugning the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16791/2023 c/w W.P.No.22476/2021.
2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed challenging the Entrustment Orders dated 16.05.2023 and 13.03.2017 passed by the State Government, thereby entrusting the disciplinary enquiries under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS (CC&A) Rules') to the Upalokayukta. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The background for filing the writ petition is that the respondent No.6, while working as a Mechanic Grade-II in BESCOM, O&M-1, Chikkaballapura Urban Division, was implicated in a corruption case based on a complaint alleging -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR demand of illegal gratification. An FIR came to be registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.05.2015, however, later on, he was reinstated on 20.01.2016. During this period, his juniors were promoted.
4. After investigation, the Lokayukta police filed a charge sheet on 25.02.2016. The Upalokayukta submitted a report dated 14.11.2016 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lokayukta Act') recommending that disciplinary enquiry be entrusted to the Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules.
5. After considering the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, the respondent No.1 passed the Entrustment Order dated 13.03.2017 under Regulation 14(A)(1)a(i) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KEB Regulations') which are pari materia to Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. After the entrustment order was issued entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta, the Additional Registrar (Enquiries) -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR of the Lokayukta was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report dated 20.10.2023 holding the charges proved against the respondent No.6.
6. The respondent No.6 filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER:
7. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2024, has allowed the writ petition and declared Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations as ulta vires, unconstitutional and struck down the same. Consequently, the order entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta, the enquiry report and the recommendations of the Lokayuktha to impose compulsory retirement of the respondent No.6 have been quashed.
8. The gravamen of the impugned judgment is perceived "inevitable bias" and the learned Single Judge has devoted paragraphs 140 to 160 in this respect. The learned Single -9- NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR Judge has considered the concept of "inevitable bias" and arrived at a conclusion that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations results in "real likelihood of bias" from the perspective of the person affected by the action. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion in paragraph 152 that at the stage of consideration of the comments of the public servant as contemplated under Section 9(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, there is adjudication about the veracity of the allegation. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that it is an additional layer of protection available to the public servant and such a process of calling for comments from the public servant and considering the same to hold that the case is prima facie substantiated before recommending further course of action has already been upheld by this Court in the case of N. GUNDAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1990 KAR
223) and STATE OF KARNATAKA vs N. GUNDAPPA (ILR 1990 KAR 4188 [DB]). In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge has been of the view that there would be an inevitable bias against the employee whose case is entrusted for holding the domestic enquiry by the Lokayukta under Rule
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules inasmuch as the Lokayukta investigates the allegation, forms an opinion in the report under Section 12(3) that prima facie the misconduct is made out and thereafter, recommends initiation of disciplinary proceedings against such employee. If the entrustment is made for holding the disciplinary enquiry by the Lokayukta, there would be inherent bias to uphold the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act. Once the Lokayukta forms an opinion recommending disciplinary action, it cannot thereafter function as an impartial enquiry authority and this creates a structural defect in holding the enquiry, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. The second ground which has been taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is that the Lokayukta performs dual functions first, as a prosecutor in criminal case in respect of the employee and second, as an Enquiry Officer to hold the departmental enquiry. It performs functions as an Investigating Authority, Recommending Authority and Inquiry Authority and even if different wings are involved, their institutional identity remains the same and this overlap of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR functions of the Lokayukta is against the fairness and there would be inherent bias against the employee.
10. The learned Single Judge has also held that under the provisions of the Lokayukta Act, the role of the Lokayukta is recommendatory one. However, under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, the Lokayukta exercises the powers of Disciplinary Authority during the enquiry, conducts adjudicatory proceedings and influences the final punishment. Therefore, the entrustment made under Rule 14A goes beyond the statutory framework of the Lokayukta and there is conflict of interest within the Lokayukta structure itself.
11. The learned Single Judge has further held that different wings of Lokayukta would not operate independently for investigation, formation of opinion and conducting the departmental enquiry thereafter. This creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. The constitutional test is not the proof of actual bias, but likelihood of bias. In the present case, there is likelihood of bias which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Rule 14A permits the same authority to assume the roles of complainant, investigator and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR adjudicator. This offends the principle that justice must not only be done, but must seem to be done. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that Rule 14A under which the entrustment order is made in favour of the Lokayukta for conducting the departmental inquiry after having investigated the case and recommend for action, is unconstitutional. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
12. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra), wherein it has been held that where the investigation is conducted by the Lokayukta, entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules is proper. The learned Single Judge ought not to have disregarded the binding precedent while deciding the issue. The finding on "inevitable bias" was reached without there being specific pleadings or any arguments having been advanced. There were no foundational pleadings of "real likelihood of bias". It is further submitted that calling for comments under Section 9(3) and Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act is an additional safeguard to the public servant as recognized in the case of N. GUNDAPPA (supra).
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR There is no adjudication while submitting the report under Section 9(3) and Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act. Calling for the comments of the public servant is a protective mechanism and not adjudication as held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The Enquiry Officers in the institution of Lokayukta are all Judicial Officers deputed under Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KL C&R Rules'), suggesting that the Enquiry Officers would be biased to uphold the report submitted under Section 12(3) and would not act independently, unfairly casts a doubt on their integrity and functional ability to enquire the allegations in the domestic enquiry against a delinquent public servant.
13. It is further submitted that there are two separate wings under the institution of Lokayukta i.e., (i) Police Wing and
(ii) Enquiry Wing. The observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that both the wings act in tandem is contrary to the settled law in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIEF SECRETARY, BANGALORE vs
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR BASAVARAJ GUDDAPPA MALIGER (ILR 2003 KAR 3589). In the said case, the functional separation of two wings within the Lokayukta has been recognised. There is no empirical basis to come to the conclusion that there is a 'manifest arbitrariness' in conducting the domestic enquiry after the entrustment under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. The said finding of manifest arbitrariness is based on hypothetical assumptions rather than evidence. There cannot be any bias of the institution against an individual. The institutional functioning over four decades has been disrupted by the impugned judgment without there being any such material or empirical data.
14. It is further submitted that the institution of Lokayukta has been established to deal with corruption by the public servants and any interpretation must strengthen the anti- corruption law. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SWATANTAR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ([1997] 4 SCC 14) and DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs DR. MANMOHAN SINGH & ANOTHER ([2012] 3 SCC 64), wherein it has been held that anti-corruption laws
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR must be interpreted to strengthen the fight against corruption. The impugned judgment would weaken the statutory anti- corruption mechanism in the State.
15. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to note and in fact has overlooked the distinction between 'investigation' and 'enquiry'. The preliminary investigation to submit a report under Section 12(3) to the State Government is materially distinct from full disciplinary enquiry involving framing of charge, evidence, cross- examination and adjudication. The learned Single Judge has conflated the two stages.
16. There is no question of double jeopardy attracted in the case, as provided under Article 20(2). The public servant is not punished twice for the same offence. The departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecution. The learned Single Judge has erred in equating the two, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs PURUSHOTTAM ([2015] 3 SCC 779). There is no question of prejudging the guilt or any conflict of interest as held by the learned Single Judge. The enquiries under Sections
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR 7, 9(3) and 12(3) do not amount to prejudging the issue. Receiving of complaint, calling for the comments and recommending enquiry do not constitute adjudication of guilt of the public servant. The observation of the learned Single Judge that it amounts to judging one's own cause is absolutely incorrect and legally unsustainable. The Enquiry Officer is an independent authority and the presumption of the learned Single Judge that the Enquiry Officers cannot take independent view casts serious aspersions on the functioning, integrity and the competence of the Enquiry Officers, who are the Judicial Officers. The learned Single Judge has ignored the statutory safeguards which are inbuilt in the Act itself. The enquiry and the report under Section 12 are only recommendatory. The final decision rests with the disciplinary authority. It is for the disciplinary authority to entrust the domestic enquiry to the Lokayukta and even after the enquiry is completed after entrustment, it is for the disciplinary authority to accept or not to accept the report.
17. The assumption of the learned Single Judge that the institution of Lokayukta acts as a prosecutor and enquirer is
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR absolutely incorrect. There is no statutory bar preventing the investigation and subsequent enquiry by the same institution especially when there are different wings involved. Such presumption drawn by the learned Single Judge is palpably wrong. The institution of Lokayukta acts as an independent institution against corruption and strengthening of institution of Lokayukta is the need of the hour. The observation of the learned Single Judge that acquittal in a criminal case would lead to vengeful departmental action is completely unfounded. The recommendation of punishment does not establish bias. Proviso to Rule 8(viii) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules contemplates major penalty in corruption cases.
18. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the Lokayukta would not have the locus standi in defending the provisions is in contradiction with the several decisions of the Division Benches recognizing its right to challenge the orders affecting its statutory powers.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in WITHROW vs LARKIN (APPEAL NO.173/1573),
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR wherein it is held that mere combination of investigative and adjudicatory functions would not by itself violate the principles of fairness or due process. Only special facts demonstrating intolerable risk of unfairness justify interference. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"That the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not, without more, constitute a due process violation, does not, of course, preclude a court from determining, from the special facts and circumstances present in the case before it, that the risk of unfairness is intolerably high."
20. In the present case, no such special facts exist. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 6:
21. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 6 (petitioners before the writ Court) have supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the judgment is legally sound, constitutionally valid and does not warrant an interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the departmental
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR enquiry had already been entrusted on 01.07.2015 to a retired District Judge. When such entrustment was in progress, there was neither any legal necessity nor compulsion for the department to subsequently refer the matter to the Lokayukta on 13.03.2017. The subsequent reference was arbitrary and contrary to the governing Rules.
22. It is further submitted that under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, once the Lokayukta/Uplokayukta records a finding that the allegations are substantiated (wholly or partly), a report is sent recommending departmental enquiry. This would mean that the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta has already reached a conclusion regarding substantiation of the allegation. The Enquiry Officer, being subordinate and acting under delegation, cannot reasonably be expected to depart from that conclusion. This creates an "inevitable bias" and a clear apprehension of a "real likelihood of bias". It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with this aspect and correctly concluded that the process violates the principle that justice not only be done, but must also seem to be done.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR
23. It is further submitted that in fact, there is an institutional and structural bias under Section 15 of the Lokayukta Act. The officers are appointed in consultation with the Lokayukta and they function under administrative and disciplinary control of the Lokayukta. The enquiry reports are subject to scrutiny, acceptance or rejection by the Lokayukta. The entire structure is under one authority, creating institutional bias. The same authority supervises the investigation through its Police Wing, oversees the departmental enquiry through its Enquiry Wing, recommends punishment and challenges acquittal in appellate proceedings. There is complete concentration of functions and powers which would amount to "judging its own cause".
24. It is further submitted that under Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations, the Board may direct enquiry through the Lokayukta or direct the disciplinary authority to proceed under Regulation 12. The department had already exercised its discretion by appointing a retired District Judge. There was no statutory compulsion to shift the enquiry to the Lokayukta and therefore, the writ Court was justified in holding Rule 14A of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR the KCS (CC&A) Rules unconstitutional in its application in the present case.
25. In several cases, enquiries were entrusted to retired District Judges; in others, to the Lokayukta. No rational basis or criteria has been shown for such differential treatment. This selective entrustment of departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
26. It is further submitted that under Article 20(2), a person cannot suffer the punishment twice for the same offence. Here, the criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the departmental enquiry are on the same set of facts, witnesses and materials. It would amount to double jeopardy. The petitioner/respondent No.6 herein has already been acquitted in Special Case No.5/2016. The Lokayukta has also filed Criminal Appeal No.1028/2019 challenging the acquittal. Thus, it is evident that the same authority investigates, conducts departmental enquiry and challenges acquittal. It clearly demonstrates overlapping control, and reinforcing institutional bias.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR
27. The enquiry report forwarded by the Upalokayukta contains not merely findings, but also recommendations regarding punishment. Such recommendation inevitably prejudices and influences the disciplinary authority, compromising independent decision making by the disciplinary authority.
28. The Lokayukta would not have the locus to insist that all the departmental enquiries be conducted by it. The filing of the present writ appeal would suggest an attempt to secure compulsory role in departmental enquiries, which is neither contemplated in the service jurisprudence nor supported by constitutional principles. The Government has not challenged the order in W.P.No.16791/2023. It is, therefore, submitted that given the structural, procedural and perceptual bias demonstrated, interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge is unwarranted and the writ appeal may be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
29. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR common judgment and order dated 16.10.2024, has set aside the entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to the Upalokayukta and quashed the enquiry report recommending compulsory retirement and struck down Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations as unconstitutional. Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations is pari materia with Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules applicable to the Government servants. Striking it down would have wide ramifications on disciplinary framework of various Boards, Corporations and public bodies in the State. The only substantial ground urged in the writ petition was the alleged "pick and choose" discretion in entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. The said contention has already been answered by this Court in the case of SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra), which upheld the entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules to the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta.
30. There were no specific constitutional pleadings demonstrating violation of fundamental rights. In absence of the pleadings, a statutory provision cannot be struck down. In support of the said submission, the learned Additional
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR Government Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN V UNION OF INDIA ([2023]11 SCC 432), which reiterates the presumption of constitutionality and necessity of specific grounds.
31. It is settled law that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings may proceed simultaneously. The Supreme Court in the cases of STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs B.K. MEENA ([1996] 6 SCC 417) AND CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY vs BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., ([1999] 3 SCC 679) has held that both proceedings are distinct in object, standard of proof and consequences and therefore, the question of double jeopardy is absolutely out of place.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
32. The Lokayukta police investigated against the respondent No.6/Sri Ravindra Reddy .V, Mechanical Grade-II, BESCOM, Chikkaballapura, based on the complaint of demand and acceptance of bribe for regularising an electricity connection to a borewell. It is alleged that the respondent No.6 demanded and received the bribe amount. A recorded telephonic conversation allegedly evidences the demand. During the trap
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings on 06.05.2015, Rs.10,000/- was recovered from an associate of the respondent No.6. The FIR was registered under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was arrested and reportedly failed to give satisfactory explanation for the amount recovered from his Associate.
33. Based on the statements, recorded conversation, seizure mahazar and other material, the Investigating Officer found prima facie misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, recommendation was made to the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental proceedings and entrust enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules.
34. The Lokayukta is an institution. There are separate Enquiry Wing and Police Wing of the Lokayukta as provided for in the schedule to the KL C&R Rules. These wings act only under the administrative and supervisory control of the Lokayukta. However, there is no interference of the Lokayukta in the process of enquiry and investigation conducted by the
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR Investigating Officers working in the Police Wing of the Karnatakak Lokayukta. The learned Single Judge has considered the concept of "inevitable bias" and has arrived at a conclusion that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations results in "real likelihood of bias" from the perspective of the person affected by such action. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Single Judge in relation to the concept of bias such as the one made in Part V at paragraph 144 of the impugned order about the "real likelihood of bias" was not even pleaded in the writ petition. The allegation regarding the "pick and choose" method in entrustment of the enquiry has been dealt with by this Court in SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra). Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose, are extracted hereunder:
"9. If the contention is further examined, it appears that earlier in case of the investigation made by the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission, the inquiry was to be entrusted to the Vigilance Commission but if the action was to be taken in accordance with Rule 12, which is for minor penalty, such enquiry was to be held by appropriate disciplinary authority. Further, if the provisions of present Rule 14-A (2) (a) (iii) of the CCA Rules, prevailing now is considered in the context to and in comparison with
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR Rule 14-A (1)(a)(iii) prevailing then, it appears that in place of "Vigilance Commission or the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission", "Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta" is substituted. It may also be recorded that during the course of hearing, we had called upon the Learned AGA to show the material for object and reasons for substitution of Rule 14-A w.e.f. 07.05.1986 and from such material, it has transpired that since the State Vigilance Commission was abolished and the Lokayukta was constituted by Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the amendment was suggested and new Rule 14-A has been substituted.
10. It further appears to us that the language under Rule 14-A (2) (a) (iii) of the CCA Rules, though uses the word "may" but further uses the word "either"
to direct an inquiry into the case by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta or to direct the appropriate authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12. Be it recorded that in case of major penalty, the inquiry is contemplated as per Rule 11 of CCA Rules. Whereas if it is for minor penalty, the inquiry and the action would be under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules. Therefore, in case of major penalty or holding of inquiry under Rule 11 oftheCCARules,if the investigation is made by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta or Inspector General of Police of Lokayukta and the report of investigation with the recommendation is forwarded to the Government, it would be required for the Government to direct entrustment of the inquiry to Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, in case of major penalty (for holding
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR enquiry as per Rule 11 of the CCA Rules) or to direct appropriate disciplinary authority for minor penalty (in accordance with Rule 12 of CCA Rules).
11. In the present case, inquiry is initiated under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. Further it has come on record that the investigation was made by Lokayukta under the Lokayukta Act, and the report and the recommendations are forwarded to the Government. The Government has also found that it is a case for initiation of inquiry for major penalty and therefore inquiry is ordered under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. But such inquiry was required to be entrusted as per the observations made hereinabove to Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be and not to any disciplinary authority or any so- called high power committee. The decision on the part of the Government for getting the inquiry undertaken under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules, in a case where the investigation is made by Lokayukta and report has been forwarded by the Lokayukta to the Government, could be said as in contravention to Rule 14-A (2)(a)(iii) of the CCA Rules and hence the initiation of the inquiry including the charge memos forwarded, both can be said to be without any authority in law by the so-
called high power committee."
35. Thus, it has been held that in case of major penalty or to hold enquiry under Rule 11 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, if the investigation is made by the Lokayuktha or Upalokayukta, as
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR the case may be, it would be required for the Government to make entrustment of the domestic enquiry to the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta. The learned Single Judge ought not to have differed with the judgment of the Larger Bench. The learned Single Judge simply brushed aside the said judgment of the Division Bench on the ground that the validity of Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules was not under challenge, which is pari materia to Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations.
36. We are also of the considered view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 152 that at the stage of consideration of the comments of the public servant as contemplated under Section 9(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, there is an adjudication about the veracity of the allegations, is incorrect. There is an additional layer of protection available to the public servant and such a process of calling the comments from the public servant and considering the same to hold that the case is prima facie substantiated before recommending further course of action has been approved by this Court in N. GUNDAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1990 KAR 223) and STATE OF
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR KARNATAKA vs N. GUNDAPPA (ILR 1990 KAR 4188 [DB]).
37. Mere apprehension of bias cannot be a ground to strike down a statutory provision. There must exist a real danger of bias. If the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the institution of Lokayukta is fair, the apprehension of bias cannot be a ground for interference. There must exist a real danger of bias. As we have said that there is an additional layer of protection available to the public servant and the criminal investigation wing which is headed by a Senior Police Officer and the domestic enquiry is conducted by another wing by an enquiry officer, who is a Judicial Officer, are separate, there is no real danger of bias as held by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that institutional bias in entrusting the enquiry under Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations to the Lokayukta on the ground of presumption that the institute of Lokayukta would try to uphold the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act. Such a finding alleging institutional bias
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR against public servant is unfounded and based on mere apprehension.
38. The Supreme Court, in LALIT KUMAR MODI VS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND OTHERS ([2011] 10 SCC 106), has held that mere apprehension of bias is not sufficient. There has to be real danger of bias. We are of the view that there does not exist any real danger of bias. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"41. As we have noted, the petitioner has, in clear terms stated that he was not making any personal allegations against two members of the Disciplinary Committee viz. Shri Jaitely and Shri Scindia. Even the grievance against the third member Shri Amin cannot be said to be well founded. The petitioner was alleging institutional bias against the members of the Committee, which was only on the basis of their participation in the meetings of the first respondent society. In this way, institutional bias can be alleged against every member of the Governing Council of IPL and the General Body of the first respondent which cannot be accepted. The petitioner may have an apprehension, but it is not possible to say from the material on record that he was facing a real danger of bias. We cannot
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025
HC-KAR
presume that the three-member
Committee will not afford the petitioner a fair hearing, or that it will not render unbiased findings. Taking a view as canvassed by the petitioner will lead to a demand for interference in the enquiries conducted by all other societies in such situations, and that cannot be approved in view of the law already laid down by this Court. This is apart from the view that we have taken, that the Committee is validly constituted under Rule 1(q) in view of the necessity arising due to the recusal of the President of BCCI from the Committee."
39. The learned Single Judge predetermined that the Judicial Officer would be following the dicta of Lokayukta or Upalokayukta as per the perspective of the public servant, without the public servant providing pleadings of such a case. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the process of conducting the enquiry through statutory mechanism provided as per the Lokayukta Act, KCS (CC&A) Rules and the KL C&R Rules result in manifest arbitrariness and thereby, offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India, does not have the foundation for reaching such a conclusion.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR
40. The Supreme Court, in the case of SWATANTAR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA ([1997] 4 SCC 14), has commented on corruption. It would be apt to take note of paragraph 6 of the said judgment regarding the malaise of corruption prevailing in the administration. Similarly, in the case of DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ([2012] 3 SCC 64), the Supreme Court in paragraph 68 has observed as under:-
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.
That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
41. The finding of the learned Single Judge that conducting the enquiry pursuant to Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations would offend Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and thereby declaring Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations as unconstitutional, is wholly erroneous.
42. Article 20(2) would apply where a person is punished twice for the same offence. Here, there is no question of punishing the delinquent officer twice for the same offence. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are different and distinct and therefore, such a finding is wholly erroneous and does not have any basis.
43. Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules is pari materia to Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations. As stated earlier that Rule 14A of KCS (CC&A) Rules has been upheld by this Court in Division Bench judgment in the case of SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra) case and the learned Single Judge ought not to have brushed aside the Division Bench judgment to hold that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations is ultra vires of
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR Articles 14 and 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta should not play the dual role of prosecutor as well as enquirer, is also the result of incorrect reading of the provisions of the Lokayukta Act. This conclusion of the learned Single Judge is based on the finding that Lokayukta and Upalokayukta will conduct themselves in a manner prejudicial to the public interest. There is no question of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta judging their own cause as observed by the learned Single Judge. Lokayukta and Upalokayukta are the retired Judges of the High Court.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also finding that the impugned judgment is against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
45. Accordingly, W.A.No.15/2025 is allowed. Consequently, W.A.No.19/2025 and W.A.No.266/2025 are also allowed since similar set of facts and question of law are involved in the said appeals. The impugned common judgment and order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB WA No. 15 of 2025 C/W WA No. 19 of 2025 WA No. 266 of 2025 HC-KAR In view of disposal of the writ appeals, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2