JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Appeal is by the Lokayukta challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.6.2012 in WP 6467/2004. It transpires, the respondent was working as Accounts Superintendent in Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division, Raichur between 1995 and 1998. Alleging some irregularities in the execution of work relating to water supply scheme to Gattu Bichhalli in Raichur Taluk, stating that the respondent cleared the bills in respect of the said work without proper verification by applying necessary checks and there was failure on his part in executing his duty as an Accounts Officer there by alleging he has violated the provisions of R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, matter was referred to the Upalokayukta for investigation. The Upalokayukta has nominated the Additional Registrar of Enquires, Karnataka Lokayukta, to frame charges and to conduct inquiry against the respondent and five others. After completion of inquiry, report was submitted on 18.3.2003 which was forwarded to the Government on 19.5.2003. Such submission of the report has been assailed before the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Single Judge, referring to the decision in WA 1510-11/2004 decided on 9.6.2011 wherein it is observed 'we are satisfied in disposing of the writ appeals by permitting the appellants to treat the report received from the Karnataka Lokayukta as an information against 1st respondent and in case on examination the same, the appellants felt that any action is called for, it shall be open to the appellants to initiate the same in accordance with law', thereby, formed an opinion treating the report received at annexure E from the Lokayukta as an information against the petitioner and that if the State feels any action is called for against the petitioner, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to initiate action in accordance with law. While referring to the decision in writ appeal, of course learned Single Judge has referred to certain information whether the report was submitted to the government for action by the direction of the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the case may be. In the fact situation, it was so held that the very preliminary report submitted be taken as FIR and to further investigate the matter and take action according to law. Further, in WA 1510-11/2004 (Prof. In the fact situation, it was so held that the very preliminary report submitted be taken as FIR and to further investigate the matter and take action according to law. Further, in WA 1510-11/2004 (Prof. S.N. Hegde's case), a report was submitted by the Government as per S. 7(2) of the Act i.e., referred for investigation and that cannot be construed to be a report in the present case which is under R. 14(a) of the CCA Rules, 1957 to investigate into the alleged misconduct by way of domestic inquiry on the report submitted. 3. But, here is a case where the government having initiated action alleging dereliction of duty against the respondent had requested the Upalokayukta to hold inquiry and submit a report. After inquiry like in other domestic inquiry, the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta having the power to hold inquiry against a public servant, exercising power provided under the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and the misconduct thereon, on the basis of the charge leveled against the respondent, held preliminary inquiry after affording opportunity to the respondents. Thereafter, this respondent being found guilty of misconduct, a report has been submitted for taking suitable action by imposing punishment holding that the respondent is guilty and there is misconduct against him. In that situation, taking into consideration the report after inquiry by way of domestic inquiry by the Lokayukta, it was for the government to impose suitable punishment either as recommended by the Upalokayukta or any other punishment. In stead, misconstruing this report as in the form of a first information, learned Single Judge dislodged the very domestic inquiry report submitted to the government by the Lokayukta. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on the premise that it is in the form of a preliminary information/first information and to treat it as a first information report to proceed further appears to be without any basis. 4. In that view of the matter, while ordering the State Government to act upon the report submitted by the Lokayukta in accordance with law with regard to imposition of punishment, the order of the learned Single Judge to treat the report as FIR is set aside. Appeal is allowed.