JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. The Report dated 6.5.2013 issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta u/S. 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, vide Annexure-F; and the Order dated 12.6.2013 issued by the Government vide Annexure-H permitting the petitioner to conduct the Departmental Enquiry are called in question in these Writ Petitions. 2. The records reveal that one M.C. Chikkanna lodged a complaint before Karnataka Lokayuktha against the petitioner who was then the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Department, Mysore, with an allegation that the petitioner had helped Siddalingeshwara House Construction Cooperative Society, Mysore, to form 28 sites in excess of the sanctioned limit; the petitioner colluded with the said society, recommended the Mysore City Corporation to make kathas in respect of the sites formed illegally without collecting mandatory fees etc., the Karnataka Lokayuktha has directed its Technical Wing to investigate into the matter and for submission of the report; the technical wing comprising of one Mr. H.R. Narayana Rao, Accounts Superintendent took up investigation and submitted his report on 31.3.2012 as per Annexure-B wherein the investigation authority has concluded that the petitioner has misused his office. The said report of the Technical Wing was accepted by the Karnataka Lokayuktha through its letter dated 6.5.2013 and as per Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the said report was placed before the State Government with a recommendation that the disciplinary enquiry needs to be held against the petitioner. The State Government in-turn passed the order as per Annexure-H dated 12.6.2013 to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. 3. The State Government in-turn passed the order as per Annexure-H dated 12.6.2013 to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking us through the material on record submits that the Investigation committee as well as Lokayuktha and the Government have not applied their mind to the facts of the case while passing the impugned orders; 28 excess sites were formed in 1.036 acres of land after due sanction from the concerned authorities; 28 sites were newly formed in the said area of 1.036 acres of land which was earlier meant for Land Bank; since the order of the State Government relating to reserving 1.036 acres of land Bank was quashed by this court vide order dated 5.10.1999 in Writ Petition No. 5260/1991 and as the State Government has issued a Circular dated 26.2.2000 recommending the societies not to insist for reservation of land for Land Bank, it was decided to form 28 sites in the said area of 1.036 acres that too after taking due permission and after modifying the plan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all these facts are totally ignored by the concerned authorities. 4. Sri. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lokayuktha, per contra opposed the Writ Petition contending that the scope of this Writ Petition is very limited inasmuch as the petitioner cannot argue on merits of the matter at this stage; the investigation team is not supposed to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter; the duty of the investigation team is to investigate and submit report to the Lokayuktha; and Lokayuktha in-turn would apply its mind and submit report u/S. 12(3) of the Act. Since the petitioner was notified and his statement of objections were also taken into consideration by the investigation officers, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he was not given any opportunity. 5. We have perused the report of the technical committee appointed by the Karnataka Lokayuktha, dated 31.3.2012 wherein it is clarified that the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his objections and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his statement of objections on 20.9.2011. 6. The investigation team has not only considered the statement of objections filed by the petitioner but also considered various documents on record and thereafter submitted his report on 31.3.2012 before the Karnataka Lokayuktha, who in-turn accepted the said report. 6. The investigation team has not only considered the statement of objections filed by the petitioner but also considered various documents on record and thereafter submitted his report on 31.3.2012 before the Karnataka Lokayuktha, who in-turn accepted the said report. The investigation team has considered various factors in detail and ultimately it has concluded that the petitioner is prima facie at fault. The Karnataka Lokayuktha has also applied its mind to the facts of the case as well as to the report submitted before him by the technical committee which was appointed for investigation. The Karnataka Lokayuktha having found that prima facie material, which is available against the petitioner, recommended to the State Government to conduct disciplinary action against the petitioner. Since we find that the procedure adopted by the concerned authority is just and proper, no interference is called for. Accordingly the Writ Petitions fail and the same stand dismissed. However, before parting with the matter, we clarify that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file his statement of objections before the disciplinary authority; further, he shall be permitted to produce documents in support of his case if any; only if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of the imputation of the misconduct, it may by itself inquire into or appoint an authority to enquire as per Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 thereof. Petition dismissed.