JUDGMENT : RATHNAKALA, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) whereby his application filed challenging the Articles of charge issued against him by the Government is dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner who is a Executive Engineer at Public Works Department was called upon by the third respondent – Karnataka Lokayukta to submit his explanation to a complaint lodged by one Ramesh alleging irregularities in implementation of Jala Nirmala Yojane, which he was working at Koppal; it was alleged 75% of the work was not completed in Koppal District; ineligible contractors were issued with tender notification without proper advertisement. Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the irregularities pertains to the period 2010-2011 and he reported to duty at Gangavathi, Koppal District on 21-08-2013. Not satisfied with his reply Hon’ble Lokayukta submitted a report to the Government under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On the basis of the same, the first respondent – government proceeded to initiate enquiry into irregularities of the work and the enquiry was entrusted to Upa-Lokayukta, in turn he assigned the enquiry to the fourth respondent – Assistant Register of Enquiries-8 and the petitioner is served with Articles of charge on 27-02-2017. 3. The petitioner submitted another representation to the fourth respondent denying the allegations and requested to drop the enquiry since he was not working at Gangavathi during the period in which irregularities said to have taken place. However, the enquiry is proceeded with. On that he approached the Tribunal challenging the correctness and validity of the entrustment of the enquiry and the Articles of charge issued against him. The Tribunal vide considered order 20-04-2017 rejected his application with their observation that:- “Since the applicant has worked in Gangavathy Sub-Division and the work at Gangavathi Taluk regarding forming of CC road and other work at Bevindahala, appears to the applicable to the applicant. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has nothing to do with works during the check period 2010-2011, cannot be accepted on mere submission and contrary to records. It is for the Enquiry Officer to probe into the issue and give his report. Keeping in view the huge amount of misappropriation, at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant has no role. It is for the Enquiry Officer to probe into the issue and give his report. Keeping in view the huge amount of misappropriation, at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant has no role. In our view, there is no merit in the application. In the result, Application fails and the same is hereby rejected.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Mahesh Patil, submits that without considering the fact that petitioner had worked as Assistant Executive Engineer, Gangavathi Sub-Division, Koppal between 28-08-2013 to 05.09.2014 and the irregularities related to the year 2010-2011, the Hon’ble Lokayukta submitted report against him along with the other officers who had worked prior to him and subsequent to him without application of mind. The Government has entrusted enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta and Articles of charge is issued by the Enquiry Officer- fourth respondent. The Enquiry Officer ought to have considered his representation and dropped the enquiry but the enquiry is being proceeded with. 5. Learned counsel brings to our notice an order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure-A-14. The fact that sell for consideration in the said case was, Superintendent of Engineer, P.W.D. challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The application was allowed and the Articles of charge issued against the applicant and the subsequent proceedings against him was quashed on the ground that the Competent Authority had not independently applied its mind before taking decision on the recommendation made in the report under Section 12(3) of Lokayukta Act. 6. Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Annexure-A15 in Writ Petition No.3001/2014 (GM-KLA) between Syed Iftekar Ahamad vs. State of Karnataka and others. In the said case it was held that the Hon’ble Upalokayukta while submitting his report under Section 12(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not considered the reply sent by the petitioner therein, and the writ petition came to be allowed by quashing the report of Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta. 7. Learned counsel continues to submit that the petitioner is due for next promotion, the initiation of disciplinary enquiry will affect his official career. Though he is unconcerned either with the work or issuance of bills to the contractors, he is unnecessarily subjected to the disciplinary enquiry. 7. Learned counsel continues to submit that the petitioner is due for next promotion, the initiation of disciplinary enquiry will affect his official career. Though he is unconcerned either with the work or issuance of bills to the contractors, he is unnecessarily subjected to the disciplinary enquiry. It is clear that neither the Lokayukta which issued show cause notice nor the Competent Authority applied their mind independently to the explanation submitted by him. Even the enquiry officer, who has issued Articles of charge has over looked his representation to drop the enquiry. Under the circumstances the order of the Tribunal rejecting his application may be set aside, consequently the Articles of charge issued against him and the subsequent enquiry proceedings thereon may be quashed. 8. Sri R.V. Nadagouda, learned AAG in his reply submits that the petition is premature, it is only on finding that the reply submitted by this petitioner to the show cause notice was not satisfactory, Lokayukta recommended enquiry to the Government and the Competent Authority on consideration of the report of the Lokayukta vide its order Annexure-A10, came to the conclusion that the facts and materials on record prima facie show that the petitioner and the other officials have committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966, accordingly, recommended under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In turn the Competent Authority vide its order Annexure-A11 has formed opinion that the performance of the three delinquent officials is prima facie suspicious and entrusted enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta. There is not procedural irregularity in initiation of the enquiry. Petitioner has to prove the innocence in the disciplinary enquiry. 9. With the above rival submissions, we have perused order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he has worked as Assistant Executive Engineer, Gangavathi Sub-Division for the period from 28.08.2013 to 05.09.2014 and had succeeded Mr. M.N. Patil who had worked out between 21.06.2011 to 27.08.2013 and subsequently also Mr. M.N. Patil had succeeded him and the execution of work pertains to the period 2010-2011. On examination of the material placed before it the Tribunal has found that his submission is contrary to the records. 10. M.N. Patil who had worked out between 21.06.2011 to 27.08.2013 and subsequently also Mr. M.N. Patil had succeeded him and the execution of work pertains to the period 2010-2011. On examination of the material placed before it the Tribunal has found that his submission is contrary to the records. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is for the Enquiry Officer which is a fact finding Authority to examine the contention of the petitioner – quo the allegation leveled against him in the Articles of charge and incriminating documentary proof if any in support of the said allegation. It is not far this court, in its writ jurisdiction to probe in disputed facts. Hence, the petition is dismissed.