JUDGMENT Mr.A D Vijaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vijaykumar, learned counsel M/s Bajentri Assts. For caveator respondent No.1. Smt.Shilpa S. Gogi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short), by which the original application preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the petitioner herein and the article of charges dated 19.06.2013 are quashed. In order to appreciate petitioners challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra: 4. Respondent No.1, at the relevant time was working as Joint Director of Agriculture, Raichur. A complaint was lodged against respondent No.1 before the Lokayukta Police on the allegation that he had demanded a sum of Rs.6,778/- as bribe for payment of charges for printing and binding of 60 manual books. On the aforesaid basis, a case was registered vide Crime No.10/2009 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the First Information Report was submitted to the concerned Special Judge. After conclusion of the investigation, the concerned police, filed a C report. Respondent No.1, thereafter, attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012. On the basis of the criminal case registered against him, the Lokayukta police submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government recommending to initiate the departmental enquiry and to entrust the matter under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). The State Government entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta vide order dated 17.04.2013. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in an original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.11.2017 inter alia held that the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 has been passed in violation of the bar contained in Rule 214(2)(b) of the Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 5. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.11.2017 inter alia held that the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 has been passed in violation of the bar contained in Rule 214(2)(b) of the Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that though the alleged incident took place on 30.04.2009, yet the enquiry was entrusted to the office of the Lokayukta well within the period of four years i.e., on 17.04.2013. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that there was infraction of Rule 214(2)(b) of the Rules. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of division bench of this Court in its order dated 21.09.2016 passed in WP 23521/2016 and in order dated 04.10.2016 passed in WP 23522/2016. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Rule 214(2) (b) of the Rules, which reads as under: 214.(1)(a) xxxxxx (2)(a) xxxxxxxx (2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the enquiry officer was investigating officer of the Lokayukta. The incident took place on 30.11.2009. Even though the enquiry was entrusted to the office of the Lokayukta on 17.04.2013, yet the charge sheet was issued to respondent No.1 on 19.06.2013 i.e., beyond a period of four years. Thus, the bar contained in Rule 214(2)(b) of the Rules will apply to the fact situation of the case. The incident took place on 30.11.2009. Even though the enquiry was entrusted to the office of the Lokayukta on 17.04.2013, yet the charge sheet was issued to respondent No.1 on 19.06.2013 i.e., beyond a period of four years. Thus, the bar contained in Rule 214(2)(b) of the Rules will apply to the fact situation of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that in view of the aforesaid provisions, the initiation of enquiry against the petitioner is per se bad in law. 9. In view of the preceding analysis, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal. Insofar as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the decisions of division bench of this Court in its order dated 21.09.2016 passed in WP 23521/2016 and in order dated 04.10.2016 passed in WP 23522/2016 is concerned, the aforesaid decisions does not deal with Section 214 of the Rules and therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioner in the fact situation of the case. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.