Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 279 (KAR)

R. v. Jattanna VS State Of Karnataka

2020-01-30

K.N.PHANEENDRA, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2020
JUDGMENT K.N.Phaneendra, J. - The present writ petitions are fi led seeking rel ief of quashing the government order passed by the 1s t respondent/the State of Karnataka in No. NaAaE62/DMK/2018, Bengaluru, dated 28.07.2018 as per Annexure-A and also the report submitted by the 2nd respondent i.e. Upa-lokayukta in Complaint dated No.28.04.2018 in Compt/Uplok/BGM-2495/17 /ARE-6 and Compt/Uplok/BGM-2316/17/ARE-6 as per Annexure-B and for such other reliefs as the Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. We have also careful ly perused the legal grounds raised in these writ petitions and also the factual aspects. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Upa-lokayukta/2nd respondent, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, submitted his report on 28.04.2018 holding that a prima-facie case has been made out for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry against the petitioners and as per Annexure-B, requested the 1s t respondent/ State Government to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry, as per paragraph 11 and 12 of the order. After receipt of the said order, the government passed an order as per Annexure-A, entrusting the matter to Upa-lokayukta for conducting discipl inary enquiry as contemplated under Section 14 of the CCA Rules. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said discipl inary enquiry is pending before Upa-lokayukta and report is awaited. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.J.S.Shetty strenuously contends before this Court drawing our attention to Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short "the Act") particularly, with reference to Section 12(3) and 12(4) of the Act and argued that, the government has got power to receive the report from Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, and in turn also the request made by the Upa-lokayukta to hold a discipl inary enquiry against the employee of the government or any publ ic servant. But the government itself cannot refer back the matter to Upa-lokayukta to conduct for further discipl inary enquiry, because it is only the action that has been taken by the government to be reported to Upalokayukta as per Section 12(4) of the Act. But the government itself cannot refer back the matter to Upa-lokayukta to conduct for further discipl inary enquiry, because it is only the action that has been taken by the government to be reported to Upalokayukta as per Section 12(4) of the Act. The wordings used in the said provision that the action taken by the government should be intimated to the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta or the action proposed to be taken on the basis of the report shal l be intimated to Upa-lokayukta. 4. Referring to the present case the learned counsel very strenuously argued before this Court that, the petitioners are the municipal servants and they are governed by separate rules cal led as Karnataka Municipal ities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010. He has also drawn our attention to Rule 11 and contended that though the Karnataka Civi l Services (Classif ication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 was made appl icable to the servants of the municipal ity, but subject to modif ications specif ied in Schedule-III. Therefore, the learned counsel contends, if the said provision is read in their proper perspective, the authorities mentioned therein is not the government but municipal authorities, who are the discipl inary authorities, appointing authorities and removing authorities of its servants. Further it is contended that the employees of Municipal ities and Corporation cannot be called as publ ic servants, but they are only to be cal led as employees of the municipal ity. Therefore, he specif ical ly contends before this Court that even the provisions of CCA Rules, particularly, Rule 14(A) is appl icable, the government has only got power to receive report from Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, but the government cannot entrust back the proceedings to Upa-lokayukta for the purpose of conducting discipl inary enquiry. At the most, the government under section 12(4) of the Act can propose the action taken by it to Upa-lokayukta, that Government has intimated the concerned discipl inary authorities to take action against its employees either by themselves conducting the discipl inary enquiry (D.E) or by entrusting the same to Upa-lokayukta. Therefore, he contends in this particular case, as the petitioners are municipal employees, the government has no jurisdiction to propose any action to be taken against them and entrust the matter to Upa-lokayukta, for to conduct the discipl inary enquiry. Therefore, he contends in this particular case, as the petitioners are municipal employees, the government has no jurisdiction to propose any action to be taken against them and entrust the matter to Upa-lokayukta, for to conduct the discipl inary enquiry. Hence, the entire proceedings pending before Upa-lokayukta is vitiated by serious i l legality. Hence, the same is l iable to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 attaching the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the proposed action, as contained in subclause 4 of Section 12 of the Act, includes the government, which is a superior authority to al l the other instrumental ities departments in State l ike Municipal Administrations and other authorities, has got power to refer the matter to Upa-lokayukta for discipl inary enquiry under the Act. They also rel ied upon the CCA Rule 14-A and submitted that only after receipt of Upa-lokayukta's report, after conducting the discipl inary enquiry, then only the government for the purpose of inf l ictment the punishment to the del inquent employee has to send the matter to the discipl inary authorities for appropriate action under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules. Therefore, they submit that it goes without saying that the proposed action as mentioned in Section 12(4) of the Act, includes referring of the matter by the government to the Upa-lokayukta for discipl inary enquiry. It is submitted by the learned counsel that some discipl inary authorities, who are the government servants, even the Panchayath Officers and Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and some of the officers, who are working under the government, they may, after the receipt of report of the Upa-lokayukta, sit over the same and nul l ify the effect of the report submitted by the Upa-lokayukta and discharge their employees then and there itself, even without conducting the discipl inary enquiry. The main object of introducing Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the relevant provisions therein empowering government, which is the superior authority to al l the authorities in the state, if it feels that it is necessary to take discipl inary action, the government itself can refer the matter to the Upalokayukta after satisfying itself with reference to the report submitted by the Upa-lokayukta so as to avoid the mischief that may happen, if the said report of the Upa-lokayukta is sent to the discipl inary authorities by empowering them either to take action or to refer the matter to Upalokayukta. Therefore, the magnanimous intentions of the legislatures have to be read into the provisions under Section 12(4) of the Act. They also rel ied upon various rul ings, which we are going to discuss l ittle later. 6. Before considering the submissions of the respective counsels, we would l ike to have a brief look at the provisions of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, which defines who is a publ ic servant, which is the competent authority and who is the discipl inary authority. 7. Apart from def ining who is a Government Servant under Section 2(6) of the Act, Section 2 clause (12) of the Act def ines who is a publ ic servant. Very sensibly the Karnataka Lokayukta Act does not refer the word "government servant" in this section it refers to "public servant". clause (12) of Section 2 reads as fol lows: "12. "publ ic servant" means a person who is or was at any time,- (a) the Chief Minister, (b) a Minister, (c) a member of the State Legislature; (d) a Government Servant:" (e) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman (by whatever name cal led) or a member of a local authority in the State of Karnataka or a statutory body or corporation establ ished by or under any law of the State Legislature, including a co-operative society, or a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and such other corporations or boards as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest in such corporations or boards, by notif ication, from time to time specify. (f) Member of a Committee or Board, statutory or non-statutory, constituted by the Government; and (g) A person in the service or pay of ,- (i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka; (i i) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) establ ished by or under a State or Central Act, owned or control led by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification, from time to time, specify; (i i i) a company registered under the Companies act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State government, or any company which is a subsidiary of such company; (iv) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the official Gazette; (v) a co-operative society; (vi) a university; Explanation.- In this clause, "co-operative society" means a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, and "university" means a university establ ished or deemed to be establ ished by or under any law of the State Legislature. 8. On plain reading of the above said provision, it not only encompasses al l the publ ic servants but also under Section 2(g) encompass the other employees of various other statutory bodies, corporations establ ished by or under the State. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working under the municipal ity as the employees of the municipal ity. Therefore, he also fal ls under the def inition of publ ic servant particularly under Section 2(g) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appel lant strenuously contends before the Court that in view of the separate Rules i.e., the Karnataka Municipal ities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, Rule 11 says that wherever the word "government servants" are used there the employees of the municipal ities has to be read in to, that's why the government servant wording is not used in Karnataka Lokayukta Act but it is a publ ic servant the def inition has been given. So whether, he is working as a "government servant" by said substitution of rule 11 or he is working under any "publ ic authorities" or any other statutory authorities they al l categorized as publ ic servants as per Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Therefore, the petitioners also fal l under the category of publ ic servants as per the above said provision irrespective of the nomenclature given to him under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Municipal ities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010. 10. Now, we have to examine the provision under Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act in order to resolve the above said submission made by learned counsel, the said provisions reads as under: "12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shal l, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shal l be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shal l, within one month of the expiry of the period specif ied in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta the action taken on the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action involving an al legation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such al legation (is substantiated) either whol ly or partly, he shal l by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. (4) The competent authority shal l examine the report forwarded to it under subsection (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (4) The competent authority shal l examine the report forwarded to it under subsection (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shal l close the case under information to the complainant, the publ ic servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant. (6) The Lokayukta shal l present on or before 31s t October of every year, a consol idated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upalokayukta under this Act to the Governor. (7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5), or the annual report under sub-section (6), the governor shal l cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each house of the state Legislature. (8) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may at his discretion make avai lable, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, publ ic, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate." 11. The above provision in the Lokayukta Act shows that, if any complaint is lodged against any publ ic servant to Upa-lokayukta by anybody, including the discipl inary authorities or the government or even the action to investigate suomotu taken up by Upa-lokayukta then under Subsection (3) of Section 12, the Lokayukta after investigation or prel iminary enquiry regarding the al legations made against a publ ic servant if he is satisf ied that such al legations, either whol ly or partly true, then he shal l make a report in writing, communicating his f indings and recommendations along with relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Sub-clause (4) says that the competent authority shal l examine the report forwarded to under Sub-Section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. The wordings used in Sub-Section (4) of Section 12 i.e., action taken or proposed to be taken fal ls for interpretation by us in this particular petition. Of-course, it goes without saying that, if the Government itself is the discipl inary authority, the Government can directly take action by accepting the report and initiate further discipl inary enquiry either by itself under the relevant CCA Rules or it can entrust the matter to Upa-lokayukta for discipl inary enquiry. After receiving further report from Upa-lokayukta government can act upon the report and take further action to impose penalty as per CCA Rules. 12. If the Government is not the competent authority in such an eventual ity whether it is incumbent upon the Government to send the investigation or enquiry report submitted by the Upa-lokayukta under Section 12(3) to the concerned discipl inary authorities either to take action, to proceed with the discipl inary action or to intimate the Upa-lokayukta the action taken are proposed to be taken against its employee on the basis of the report. In order to understand this anomaly the court has to go through the Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. Before that as we have categorical ly examined the Municipal ities Rules noted above, the CCA Rules of the Karnataka Civi l Services Rules has been adopted with certain modif ication as per Rule 11(1) of the Karnataka Municipal ities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, which reads as fol lows: 11. Application of certain other Rules : Without prejudice to these rules, the provisions of .- (1) The Karnataka Civi l Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 shal l apply subject to modifications specified in Schedule III. Application of certain other Rules : Without prejudice to these rules, the provisions of .- (1) The Karnataka Civi l Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 shal l apply subject to modifications specified in Schedule III. Proviso to this, is also there underneath said provision which reads as fol lows: "And other rules, made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civi l services, Act, 1978, orders and special orders of Government issued from time to time, and adopted in those Rules shal l mutatis mutandis apply to the employees appointed under these rules subject to modifications made in these rules. Provided that the expressions "government servant(s)", "Head of the department/s", "Head of the Off ices", "The government" or/and "the Governor", wherever they occur in the Acts and Rules enumerated above, shal l respectively mean "Municipal employee(s)" "Deputy Commissioner or Director of Municipal Administration or any of his subordinates notified by Government from time to time, as the case may be", Municipal Commissioner in respect of City Municipal Counci l and Chief Officer in respect of Town Municipal and Town Panchayat in the State", and "Government in Urban Development Department" 13. Of-Course, by reading into these provisions with proviso, it clearly discloses that wherever the wordings used as government in the CCA Rules that should be replaced by the authorities mentioned in the proviso. That means to say, this rule clearly indicates that the rule wants to replace the government as a discipl inary authority with that of authorities under the Municipal ities Act as appointing authorities, removing authorities or the discipl inary authorities. There is no dispute so far as this aspect is concerned, that Municipal Administration is discipl inary authority so far as the petitioners are concerned. 14. Now coming back to Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civi l Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, which is also mutatis mutandis appl icable to the Municipal Employees. There is no dispute so far as this aspect is concerned, that Municipal Administration is discipl inary authority so far as the petitioners are concerned. 14. Now coming back to Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civi l Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, which is also mutatis mutandis appl icable to the Municipal Employees. Rule 14-A is the relevant provision, which reads as fol lows: "14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta.- (1) The provisions of sub-rule(2) shal l, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, be appl icable for purposes of proceedings against Government Servants whose al leged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on reference from Government or where offences al leged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Pol ice before 21s t day of December, 1992. (2) (a) where an investigation into any al legation against.- (i) a member of the State Civi l Services Group 'A' or group 'B', or (i i) a member of the State Civi l Services Group 'A' or group 'B' and a member of the State Civi l Services Group 'C' or Group 'D', or (i i i) a member of the State civi l Services Group 'C' or group 'D' the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta or, (before the 21-12-1992), the Inspector- General of Pol ice of the Karnataka Lokayukta pol ice is of the opinion, that discipl inary proceedings shal l be taken, he shal l forward the record of the investigation along with his recommendation to the Government and the Government, after examining such record, may either direct an inquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or direct the appropriate Discipl inary Authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12. (b) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry into a case under clause (a) the enquiry may be concluded either by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be, or an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorized by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta to conduct the inquiry. (b) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry into a case under clause (a) the enquiry may be concluded either by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be, or an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorized by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta to conduct the inquiry. Provided that the inquiry shal l not be conducted by an officer lower in rank than that of Government Servant against whom it is held: Provided further that an inquiry against a government servant not lower in rank than that of a deputy Commissioner shal l not be conducted by any person other than the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or an Additional Registrar (Inquiries). Provided also that an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorities to conduct an inquiry under clause (b) shal l not have the power to appoint another officer to conduct it whol ly or in part. (c) The Lokayukta, the Upa-lokayukta or the officer authorized under clause (b) to conduct an inquiry shal l conduct it in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this rule and for that purpose shal l have the powers of the discipl inary Authority referred to in the said rule. (d) After the inquiry is completed, the record of the case along with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and the recommendation of the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta as thecase may be, shal l be sent to the Government. (e) On receipt of the record under clause (d) the Government shal l take action in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11-A and in al l such cases the government shal l be the Discipl inary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shal l be appl icable to members of the Karnataka Judicial Services or Government Servants under the administrative control of such members or of the High court of Karnataka." 15. On careful perusal of the said provision, Rule 14-A(2) is the relevant provision so far as this case is concerned. Rule (2) (a) Sub-clause (i) to (ii i) discloses that, al l the off icers in group-A, B, C and D are covered. On careful perusal of the said provision, Rule 14-A(2) is the relevant provision so far as this case is concerned. Rule (2) (a) Sub-clause (i) to (ii i) discloses that, al l the off icers in group-A, B, C and D are covered. If the discipl inary authority wants to initiate proceedings, in such an eventual ity, the authority shal l forward the record for investigation along with the recommendation to the Government and the Government after examining such record may either direct an enquiry into the case by the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or direct the appropriate discipl inary authority to take action in accordance with Rules 12 of the CCA Rules. Therefore, this provision only contemplates that only after the government receives any report either from the disciplinary authority or from the Lokayukta, in such an eventual ity for the purpose of considering the said report under Rule 12 only, the government can direct the discipl inary authorities to take action in accordance with law under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules. 16. Rule 12 of the Karnataka Civi l Services (CCA) Rules 1957, which reads as fol lows: 12. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-(1) subject to the provisions of sub-Rule(3) of rule 11-A, no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 shal l be made except after.- (a) informing the government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 11, in every case in which the Discipl inary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; Provided that no order imposing a penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect shal l be made without holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 11. (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shal l include.- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him; (i i) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior del ivered to him. (i i i) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vi) the finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and (vi i) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefore. 17. On meaningful reading of the above said provision, the said Rule 12 is appl icable only after the discipl inary enquiry is conducted and the delinquent employee was held to be gui lty of the al legations made against him and this provision empowers the discipl inary authority to impose the penalties upon him. 18. Therefore, it goes without saying that the said provision is appl icable only after receipt of the report of the discipl inary enquiry either from the discipl inary authority or from the Upa-lokayukta. Therefore, the arguments addressed by the learned counsel that the Government cannot entrust the matter to the Upa-lokayukta and receive any report with regard to the discipl inary enquiry is not acceptable on careful harmonious reading of the provisions under Lokayukta Act, with the Municipal ities Rules as noted above. 19. In this background, some of the relevant provisions considered by this Court is also to be looked into. 20. In a decision of this Court in W.P.No.2581/2016 between S.V.Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka almost similar point fell for consideration. At paragraph No.15 of the said judgment, after considering the provisions of the Lokayukta Act, and a separate Rule appl icable to BWSSB, the Court has held in the fol lowing manner: "15. From the aforementioned discussion, it is amply clear that by virtue of the Notifications dated 12.10.1982 and 1.3.2006 mentioned supra, the CCA Rules are made appl icable to the BWSSB officials also. From the aforementioned discussion, it is amply clear that by virtue of the Notifications dated 12.10.1982 and 1.3.2006 mentioned supra, the CCA Rules are made appl icable to the BWSSB officials also. Thus aforementioned provisions of CCA Rules clearly depict that discipl inary action can be initiated against the petitioner (BWSSB employee) without taking consent of BWSSB under the provisions of Lokayukta Act. Morevover as clarified by us in the aforementioned paragraphs, the petitioner fal ls within the definition of 'publ ic servant' as found under Section 2(12)(g) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Hence, there is no hurdle for Upa-Lokayukta to investigate into the matter and to submit the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. So also there is no bar for the State Government to entrust the matter for discipl inary enquiry to Upa-Lokayukta as per the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act." 21. The above said paragraph is read in proper perspective, it goes without saying that al l the employees who are covered under Section 2(12)(g) are to be considered as publ ic servants and there is no bar for the State government to entrust the matter for discipl inary enquiry to Upalokayukta in respect of those publ ic servants who are referred to under Section 2(12)(g) as per the provision of Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. 22. In another rul ing cited by Mr.J.S.Shetty for petitioners, in W.P.No.10999-11006/2017, vide judgment dated 15.06.2019, this Court has made an observation with reference to some GTTC employees in fact in our opinion the above said judgment cited by the learned counsel is not in a straight jacket manner appl icable to this particular case. At paragraph No.7 of the judgment, the Court has observed in the fol lowing manner: "7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the action of Respondents No.2 and 3 entrusting the enquiry to the Upa Lokayukta is whol ly i l legal and without jurisdiction. The provisions of CCA Rules would have no appl ication to the petitioners as they have their own Certified Standing Orders, which deals with the discipl inary matters and procedure for conducting enquiry against the employees of GTTC. Further it is submitted that the Upa Lokayukta, on a complaint received has investigated and submitted his report. The provisions of CCA Rules would have no appl ication to the petitioners as they have their own Certified Standing Orders, which deals with the discipl inary matters and procedure for conducting enquiry against the employees of GTTC. Further it is submitted that the Upa Lokayukta, on a complaint received has investigated and submitted his report. It is not a complaint referred to the Lokayukta by the Government or the second respondent. On submission of the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act by the Upa Lokayukta, the second respondent could not have entrusted the enquiry to the Upa Lokayukta. He rel ies upon Section 3 of CCA Rules in support of his submission. It is his contention that there is no provision for entrusting the enquiry to the Upa Lokayukta either under the certified Standing Orders of GTTC or in the Rules and Regulations of GTTC." 23. This Court was of the opinion that when the separate certif ied standing orders or Rules govern a particular employee, if that particular rules or standing orders does not provide any empowerment to the discipl inary authorities to refer the matter to any other instrumentalities l ike Upalokayukta to conduct discipl inary enquiries in such an eventual ity the entrustment of the enquiry by such authorities, violates the specif ic rules under the special rules governing those employees. Therefore, the provision under Section 12(4) was not at al l found to be appl icable in the said case. 24. In fact almost simi lar point fel l for consideration before this Court in a decision between Gopal Hanumanth Kase Vs. The State of Karnataka., (2018) ILR(Kar) 2347 This Court after in detai l discussing the provisions under Section 12(3) and also Section 12(4) of the Act has come to the conclusion that, the report submitted by the Upa-lokayukta under Sub-clause (3) of Section 12 recommending initiation of discipl inary action against the petitioner who was also a employee of the municipal corporation i.e., who was working as Commissioner, City Municipal Counsel, Jamakhandi. After considering the municipal ities Rules as noted above, the Court has come to the conclusion that, once perusal of the contents of the report made by Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act and after satisfying itself government takes a decision to refer the matter to Lokayukta for disciplinary enquiry and the same is not against any law, the government was wel l within its power to entrust the Lokayukta for further disciplinary enquiry. The Court also has rel ied upon various rul ings to come to such a conclusion. 25. Under the Lokayukta Act what is to be looked into is the wordings used in Section 12 or under Section 2(4) about who is the competent authority. Section 2(4) reads as fol lows: "2. Definition.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (1) xxxx (2) xxxs (3) xxxx (4) "competent authority" in relation to a publ ic servant means.- (a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion; (b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the chief Minister, (c) in the case of a government servant other than a Secretary, the Government of Karnataka;" (d) in the case of any other publ ic servant, such authority as may be prescribed; 26. The said provision particularly Section 2(4)(d), it says that in the case of other publ ic servant such authority as may be prescribed. If we read this provision in consonance with Rule 3 i.e., the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1985 which says that, who is the competent authority, which reads as fol lows: "3. Competent Authority.- In respect of the publ ic servants referred to in sub-clause(d) of clause (4) of Section 2, the Government of Karnataka shal l be Competent Authority." 27. Therefore on harmonious reading of section 2 sub clause (4) (d) with Rule 3, they clearly disclose that, the Government is the competent authority to take action against publ ic servants referred to under Sub-clause (d) of Clause 4 to Section 2. Therefore on harmonious reading of section 2 sub clause (4) (d) with Rule 3, they clearly disclose that, the Government is the competent authority to take action against publ ic servants referred to under Sub-clause (d) of Clause 4 to Section 2. Therefore, whatever may be the nomenclature that has been used in other enactment prescribing them as discipl inary authorities that cannot override the def inition of competent authority as def ined under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Rules, unless and unti l the said provisions are declared as ultra virus are the said provisions or against the other principles of law. Therefore, for al l practical purposes, if any matter comes within the purview of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Courts are bound to ascertain the exact def inition of the relevant wordings with reference to the said Act and not with reference to any other enactment. 28. Revisiting the provision under Section 12(3) and (4), therein the wordings used are "competent authority" and not a "discipl inary authority" therefore, for all practical purposes the competent authority as referred to in sub clause (4) of Section 12 is the Government, which has the power under the said provision either directly to take action or propose any action to be taken against a publ ic servant who is covered under Section 2(12)(g) of the Act. 29. Before referring to the sanctity of appointing the Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court as Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha, we may feel it just and necessary to note here the object of introducing the Lokayuktha institution. 30. His Excel lency, President of India vide notif ication dated 05.01.1966 appointed the Administrative Reforms Commission for addressing "Problems of Redress of citizens' Grievances" interalia with the object for ensuring the highest standards of eff iciency and integrity in the publ ic services, for making publ ic administration a fit instrument for carrying out the social and economic pol icies of the Government and achieving social and economic goals of development, as also one responsive to people. The Commission was also asked to examine the various issues including the problems of redress of Citizens' Grievances mainly concentrating with regard to the eradicating corruption which was rampant. The Commission after elaborate discussion suggested for establ ishment of Lokpal in Centre and Lokayuktha in States holding that the hands of Governments would be strengthened by such institutions. The Commission was also asked to examine the various issues including the problems of redress of Citizens' Grievances mainly concentrating with regard to the eradicating corruption which was rampant. The Commission after elaborate discussion suggested for establ ishment of Lokpal in Centre and Lokayuktha in States holding that the hands of Governments would be strengthened by such institutions. It was considered that, the publ ic opinion has been agitated for a long time over the prevalence of corruption in the administration and it is l ikely that the cases coming up before Lokayuktha, which is an independent authority, might involve in deal ing with the allegations of corrupt motive and favouritism in respect of Government authorities and as wel l as publ ic servants. Therefore, the institution should be so strong to deal with such cases. The Commission also suggested as the Ministers, Secretaries and other persons occupying highest position would also come under the purview of Lokayuktha, therefore, the said institution must be headed by a strong, dedicated and equipped personal ity. Perhaps, that may be the reason the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court are preferred for appointment of Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha. It is also to be a notable point that, the persons who occupy such position should be independent and impartial. Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in a private and informal in character. The appointment of Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha, therefore is purely non pol itical and their status is compared with the highest judicial functionaries in the Country, they should deal with the matters in the discretionary fields involving acts of injustice, corruption or favourtism. Therefore, the proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference and they are given the maximum latitude and powers in obtaining information relevant to their duties. Bearing in mind these essential features of the institutions, the persons who occupy such highest positions who are shown integrity to the institutions for which they have worked, are selected as Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha. 31. In the above said backdrop, the object and purpose and also considering the status of Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha were selected from the judicial system has to be borne in mind in order to ascertain the veracity of the powers given to the government under the Lokayuktha Act has to be tested. 31. In the above said backdrop, the object and purpose and also considering the status of Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha were selected from the judicial system has to be borne in mind in order to ascertain the veracity of the powers given to the government under the Lokayuktha Act has to be tested. Under the Act, the Upalokayuktha after considering the al legations made against any publ ic servant or a government servant and after examining the materials provided and col lected by him and after giving opportunity to the del inquent employee, sends a report to the government under Section 12(3) of the Act. The said report would be sent by Upalokayuktha after satisfying himself that the al legations are whol ly or partial ly true and after expressing his satisfaction he would send a report under the above said provisions. Therefore, when a highest functionary of the said institution and particularly after taking into consideration the above said criterias, sends a report, such report should not be in any manner taken by any person in a casual manner, lot of sanctity and weight is attached to such reports. Perhaps that may be the reason that if a report is submitted by Lokayuktha and Upalokayuktha to the Government, if it is sent to any other discipl inary authority or to the concerned department, there is chances of those authorities sitting over the opinion of Lokayuktha and exercising their powers to nul l ify the effect of the said report of Upalokayuktha by simply sending action taken report, even under certain circumstances casual ly saying that no action is necessary. Therefore, the government which is the highest super power when compared to al l other departments of the government which acts as parent prageria of almost al l the employees of the government department and other publ ic servants who work in various other publ ic institutions, to receive the report submitted by Lokayuktha u/S 12(3) and also empowered to entrust the matter to the Lokayuktha if any further discipl inary enquiry to be conducted. 32. It is also to be noted that, if the government itself is the discipl inary authority, it itself can take appropriate action against the delinquent employee by conducting enquiry by itself or referring the matter to Upalokayuktha for further discipl inary enquiry under the provisions of CCA Rules. 33. 32. It is also to be noted that, if the government itself is the discipl inary authority, it itself can take appropriate action against the delinquent employee by conducting enquiry by itself or referring the matter to Upalokayuktha for further discipl inary enquiry under the provisions of CCA Rules. 33. There is no bar under any other provision of law because Rule 14(a)(i i)(i i i), which we have already referred to, the Government has got power to refer the matter to discipl inary authorities concerned only for the purpose of imposing punishment u/s 12 to the discipl inary authorities after receiving the report from the Upalokayuktha, particularly after the discipl inary enquiry is conducted and report is submitted with recommendation by the Lokayuktha. So, this wil l clarify the situation that under Rule 14(A)(i i i), the Government has got power to receive the discipl inary enquiry report and thereafter only it can refer the same to the discipl inary authorities to impose penalty when the Government itself is not the discipl inary authority to impose punishment. Therefore, ti l l that point of time under section 12 sub-section (4), the government has al l the powers which the discipl inary authority has got to refer the matter to the Upa-lokayukta for to conduct the discipl inary enquiry and to report back to the Government. 34. Therefore, looking to the above said relevant provisions and the rul ings we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no i l legal ity or irregularities committed by the government in receiving the prel iminary investigation report under Section 12(3) of he Act and thereafter again referring the matter to the Upa-lokayukta for conducting the discipl inary enquiry. Hence, the writ petition fai ls and the same is l iable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.