ORDER : 1. The writ petitioners, who happen to be the public servants, are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the common Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2019 made by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, whereby their Application Nos. 536-538 of 2017 wherein a challenge was laid to the proceedings under the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, have been negatived. After service of notice, the respondent-State Government is represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the respondent-Lokayuktha is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel; both they vehemently oppose the writ petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order of the KAT. 2. Brief facts of the case: (a) The Lokayuktha proceedings were triggered by the complaint of one Mr. Gavisiddappa Saloni, an advocate from Gangavathi; the allegation was that certain land records were meddled with and phodi of lands was made unlawfully; the said complaint was referred to the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal, for preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 9(3) of the Act; the Assistant Commissioner, in turn, forwarded a copy of the complaint to the petitioners who had filed the objections; he had submitted his Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 25.06.2015 recommending for the investigation. (b) The Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuktha, having investigated into the matter, submitted to the Government Section 12(3) Report dated 28.03.2016 recommending a Disciplinary Enquiry; accordingly, the Government vide order dated 09.12.2016 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957; the Upa-Lokayuktha, vide order dated 23.12.2016 authorised the Additional Registrar (Inquiries-10) who issued the Charge Memo dated 05.01.2017; therefore, the petitioner had approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal seeking quashment of the entire Lokayukta proceedings culminating into issuance of Charge Memo; the Tribunal having rejected their cases, petitioners are before us. 3. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers and also the original file produced and taken back by the Panel Counsel for the Lokayuktha, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: (a) The only question that was canvassed before this Court is as to who should forward a copy of the complaint to the delinquent officials; the learned Advocates for the petitioners argue that it is only the Lokayuktha/Upa-Lokayuktha, after the Preliminary Inquiry, should do this; in support of this, he banks upon a decision of a learned Single Judge (K.A. Swami, J.) of great repute in N. Gundappa vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar. 223 which is affirmed in appeal in State of Karnataka vs. N. Gundappa, ILR 1990 Kar. 4188; per contra, learned panel counsel for the Lokayuktha joined by the learned AGA vehemently contends that, if the officer who is entrusted with the Preliminary Inquiry forwards a copy of the complaint to the delinquents, the requirement of law is satisfied. (b) Both the sides heavily bank upon their own interpretation of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act which read as under: “9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations: (1) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he: (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint [and in the case of an investigation initiated suo moto by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section 7] to the public servant and the competent authority concerned. (b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint [or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 7 as the case may be]. (b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint [or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 7 as the case may be]. In the aforesaid decisions, the above provisions have been held to be mandatory and therefore, their violation, if any would arguably invalidate the Lokayuktha proceedings, is broadly true; the requirement of serving a copy of the complaint alone was the subject matter of the said decisions; however, the precise question as to who should provide a copy of the complaint to the delinquent and at what stage, had not fallen for consideration; therefore, the ratio that the subject provisions are mandatory would throw but only a little light on the “Road to Justice.” (c) Even from the days of Lord Macaulay, it was felt necessary that the public servants in the discharge of their official duties should be protected from vexatious proceedings, lest the public interest should suffer, otherwise; similar protective provisions are found in Sections 196 and 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, (old and new), and in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (old and new); such provisions are there in several State Legislations too like the Police Acts, etc. the Lokayuktha proceedings have a tinge of quasi-criminal nature; a learned Single Judge of yester-years in Prof. S.N. Hegde vs. The Lokayukta, 2004 (3) Kar. L.J. 505 has rightly held that the reputation of a man being precious to his soul an adverse report submitted under Section 12 of the Act may put the same at stake; keeping this in view, the subject provisions need to be construed, the dignity of offices/designations of the concerned delinquents, also cannot be lost sight of. (d) In Prof. L.J. 505 has rightly held that the reputation of a man being precious to his soul an adverse report submitted under Section 12 of the Act may put the same at stake; keeping this in view, the subject provisions need to be construed, the dignity of offices/designations of the concerned delinquents, also cannot be lost sight of. (d) In Prof. S.N. Hegde (supra), the principles of natural justice have been read inter-alia into the provisions of Section 9 and rightly so; as already mentioned above, the text of Section 9(3)(a) and (b) have to be construed with their professed object that the scrupulous public servants need protection even when they err in the discharge of their official duties; that is the reason why the legislature, in its wisdom, provides for holding of a Preliminary Inquiry which may be followed by an ‘Investigation’ in the event a case worthy of Investigation is made out; when the Lokayuktha/Upa-Lokayuktha direct a Preliminary Inquiry, the delinquents are not in the picture; the reasons for this are not far to seek; whether there is an Investigation-worthy case or not is to be found out on the basis of prima facie material available on record and not on the basis of the defence that may be set up later; that being the position, there is an error on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, in forwarding a copy of the complaint to and calling for the response of the delinquents; an argument to the contrary cannot be countenanced save by straining the language of this provision; this aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Upa-Lokayuktha. (e) The text and context of Section 9 make it clear that the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayuktha shall hold or cause a Preliminary Inquiry and thereafter, decide as to desirability of the investigation into the matter; when he forms an opinion on the basis of a Preliminary Inquiry that there is a case for investigation, it is he who shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and also to the competent authority concerned; the public servant shall then have an opportunity to offer his comments on the complaint; this is the legislative scheme and an otherwise interpretation would bruise it to the prejudice of delinquent public servant, to say the least; as already discussed above, the provision imposes a duty on the Lokayuktha/Upa-Lokayuktha to apply his mind to what emerges from the Preliminary Inquiry and only then to take a decision; this duty is not discharged when the Officer of Preliminary Inquiry forwards a copy of complaint to the public servant; if the legislature intended that a copy of the complaint should be forwarded by the Officer of Preliminary Inquiry and that there is no such requirement qua the Lokayukta, the text of the provision would have been different. 4. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed in part; the impugned order of the KAT is set at naught; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Lokayukta proceedings and all other consequential proceedings as well; the matter is remitted for de novo consideration from the stage of processing the subject complaint, in the manner discussed above; all contentions of the parties are kept open. Costs made easy.