ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) To call for records relating to issue of the impugned order bearing No. Gra. Aa. Pa. 32 INQ 2011, Bengaluru dated 09.11.2011, under Regulations 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, passed by the 2nd respondent (vide Annexure-A) and after perusal set aside the same. (b) To quash the impugned show cause notice bearing No. LOE 86 SeEV, Bengaluru dated 15-02-2021 of the 4th respondent (vide Annexure-G). (c) Grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD for short) and was deputed to the Panchayat Raj Department (PRD for short) and while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the said Department, vide letter dated 26.06.2007, the District Social Welfare Officer of Gulbarga asked the petitioner to inspect and submit a report as regards construction work of the Sakpal Pre-Metric Hostel at Kurikot and an inspection report was submitted. When it was alleged that the petitioner had taken a bribe of Rs.5,000/-, in pursuance thereof, a complaint came to be filed before the Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga, registered as Crime No. 9/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein he was tried and acquitted on 16.03.2012. Subsequent thereto, suo-moto proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 3-Upalokayukta against the petitioner and a report came to be submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The second respondent-Under Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department vide its order dated 09.11.2011 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') which inturn came to be entrusted to the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 of the Lokayukta on 19.11.2011 vide Annexure-B. The enquiry proceeding having been completed, recommendation was submitted on 28.10.2019 vide Annexure-F. It is thereafter that a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 15.02.2021 vide Annexure-G. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The contention of Sri.Avinash A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that: 3.1. 3. The contention of Sri.Avinash A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that: 3.1. The petitioner having been employed under the PWD, it is the PWD who is the employer and the Disciplinary Authority insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 3.2. The petitioner having been deputed to the PRD, the said department could not have entrusted the enquiry which is contrary to Rule 14-A of the Rules. His submission is that once the entrustment itself is bad, all further proceedings taken up in pursuance thereto are required to be quashed. 3.3. It is only the competent authority under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) who could entrust the matter for enquiry to the Lokayuka or Upalokayukta for enquiry. 3.4. By referring to sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act, he submits that insofar as the public servant is concerned, the prescribed authority would be the competent authority. By referring to sub-rule (c) of Rule 2 of CCA Rules, he submits that it is only the Disciplinary Authority who could have entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for enquiry. To determine who the Disciplinary Authority is he takes to the definition of ‘Appointing Authority’ under sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 of CCA Rules and states that it is the Appointing Authority who would be the Disciplinary Authority who could entrust the matter for enquiry. 3.5. In the present case, the Appointing Authority being the PWD Department, the said department having lent the services of the petitioner to PRD, the PRD could not have entrusted the matter to Lokayukta. The entrustment ought to have been made by the Appointing Authority i.e. PWD. 3.6. He relies upon Rule 15 of the CCA Rules to contend that whenever services of government servants are lent to Central Government, State Government or local or any other authority, the Borrowing Authority shall not take any disciplinary proceedings against such government servants or place them under suspension without the prior approval of the Lending Authority. Thus, he submits that even if the Borrowing Authority viz., PRD wanted to take action against the petitioner, no such action could be taken unless the Borrowing Authority had taken prior approval of the Lending Authority. In the present case, no such approval having been taken, he submits that the entrustment itself is bad in law. 3.7. Thus, he submits that even if the Borrowing Authority viz., PRD wanted to take action against the petitioner, no such action could be taken unless the Borrowing Authority had taken prior approval of the Lending Authority. In the present case, no such approval having been taken, he submits that the entrustment itself is bad in law. 3.7. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the aforesaid reliefs be granted. 4. Sri.Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that: 4.1. The PRD and the PWD being departments of the State discharging sovereign duties, the CCA Rules have been adopted by both the departments. That being so, the said Rules would be applicable to the petitioner whether he was discharging duties in PWD or PRD. 4.2. The CCA Rules being applicable to both the departments, the Lokayukta would be a competent authority to investigate and enquire into any allegations made under the Lokayukta Act or under the CCA Rules relating to discipline since the Rules are applicable and the mode of enquiry under the Lokayukta Act had been adopted by the State. 4.3. The PRD being the Borrowing Authority, has entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta for enquiry; the enquiry having been completed, a second show cause notice was issued by PWD Department. On reply being received from the petitioner, it is the PWD who will impose penalty if and so required. The PWD being the Appointing Authority, as also the Disciplinary Authority, there is no embargo on the PWD to impose any penalty prescribed under the Rules. The entrustment being proper, the enquiry being proper, PWD having authority and jurisdiction, no fault could be found with the issuance of show cause notice which is challenged in the present proceedings and he, therefore, submits that the present petition requires to be dismissed. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 apart from adopting the submissions made by Sri.Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner being a government servant/public servant, the present writ petition challenging the issuance of show cause notice is not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. On these grounds, she submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 6. On these grounds, she submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri.Avinash.A Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Smt.Maya.T.R, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4. Perused the records. 7. The points that would arise for determination are: 1. Whether the Borrowing Authority can entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta without obtaining prior permission/ approval of the Lending Authority? 2. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable? 3. What Order? 8. I answer the above points as under. 9. Answer to Point No. (1): Whether the Borrowing Authority can entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta without obtaining prior permission/approval of the Lending Authority? 9.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed in PWD and subsequently, deputed to the PRD. It is while he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer of the PRD that inspection report was submitted as regards certain works of which he was incharge wherein it was alleged that he has taken bribe of Rs.5000/-. The delinquency and/or corruption charge had occurred while he was in the PRD is also not in dispute. The Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga now Kalaburagi registered Crime No. 9/2007 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as regards aforesaid allegation where he was tried and acquitted on 16.03.2012. 9.2. Suo-moto proceedings were also initiated by the Lokayukta and a report under Section 12(3) of the Act was also submitted. The suo-moto proceedings being initiated under the Lokayukta Act, the same can only relate to grievances or allegation under the Lokayukta Act. 9.3. On the basis of the said report, the second respondent-Under Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the Lokayukta on 09.11.2011, the enquiry having proceeded with, the petitioner having participated in the same, the Upalokayukta gave a recommendation on 28.10.2019, after re-consideration of the enquiry report dated 24.10.2019 vide Annexure-E recommended for imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and for withholding 20% of the pension payable to him. The second show cause notice being issued by the PWD, no reply having been submitted, the PWD is in the process of imposing penalty as it deems fit. The second show cause notice being issued by the PWD, no reply having been submitted, the PWD is in the process of imposing penalty as it deems fit. It is challenging the enquiry report and the second show cause notice, the petitioner is before this Court. 9.4. The above sequence of events would indicate that it is the Borrowing Authority viz., the PRD who had referred the matter to the Lokayukta for enquiry. The contention of Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is only the Lending Authority or the employer who can be the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, no entrustment of enquiry to the Lokayukta could be made by the Borrowing Authority. In this regard, he refers to Rule 2(a) and 2(c) of the CCA Rules, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “2. Interpretation - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) “Appointing Authority” in relation to a Government servant means: (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the Service of which the Government Servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Government Servant is for the time being included. (ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government Servant for the time being holds. (iii) the authority which appointed the Government Servant to such service, grade or post, as the case may be, whichever authority is the highest authority. (b) xxxx (c) “Disciplinary Authority” in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Government Servant means the authority competent under these rules to impose on him that penalty.” 9.5. By referring to Rule 2(a) of the CCA Rules dealing with the definition of Appointing Authority, he submits that in the present case the Appointing Authority is the PWD and by relying on the definition of Disciplinary Authority under Rule 2(c) of the CCA rules, he submits that the authority competent would necessarily mean the Appointing Authority. Therefore, it is only the PWD who could have referred the matter for enquiry and not the PRD. 9.6. Therefore, it is only the PWD who could have referred the matter for enquiry and not the PRD. 9.6. A perusal of both these definitions does not in any manner substantiate the contention of Sri.Avinash A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as, there is no restriction in either of these two provisions on the Borrowing Authority initiating disciplinary proceedings nor is there a specific requirement for only the Appointing Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 9.7. Rule 2(c) of the CCA Rules deals with Disciplinary Authority inasmuch as, that rule would come into play only when a disciplinary order is to be passed and not at the stage of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. 9.8. Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is pressed into service by Sri.Avinash A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that it is only the Appointing Authority who can entrust enquiry to the Lokayukta. Reading of the entire provision does not substantiate such a contention. 9.9. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, it only mandates that the provisions of sub-rule (2) thereof would be applicable for the purposes of proceeding against the Government Servants when the alleged misconduct has been investigated by the Lokayukta or an Uplokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on a reference from the Government or where offences alleged against them are punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21.12.1992. Thus, sub-rule (1) of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules makes sub-rule (2) applicable notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13 of the CCA Rules. Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules only speaks of the procedure. 9.10. The relevant provision to consider who the Disciplinary Authority is would be Rule 9 of the CCA Rules which designates certain officers to be the disciplinary authorities. In terms thereof, in respect of the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority would be the Secretary of the PWD who has appointed him. 9.11. Rule 10-A speaks of the authority to institute proceedings which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “10-A. Authority to institute proceedings: (1) The Governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may: (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant. 9.11. Rule 10-A speaks of the authority to institute proceedings which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “10-A. Authority to institute proceedings: (1) The Governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may: (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant. (b) direct a Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant on whom that Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 8. (2) A Disciplinary Authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary Authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.” 9.12. In terms thereof, the Governor or any other authority empowered by him may institute disciplinary proceedings or direct the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In terms of sub-rule (2) thereof, the Disciplinary Authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant. Again, I do not see any distinction made here as regards Lending or the Borrowing Authority and/or for disciplinary proceedings to be only initiated by the Disciplinary Authority. 9.13. The above provisions relating to officers within the department, Rule 15 of the CCA Rules is a provision which deals with Lent Officers. The said rule is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “15. Provisions regarding Lent Officers: (1) Where the services of a Government Servant are lent to the Central Government, any State Government or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as “the Borrowing Authority”), the Borrowing Authority shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of taking a disciplinary proceeding against him: Provided that the Borrowing Authority shall not take any disciplinary proceedings against such Government Servant or place him under suspension without the prior approval of the Lending Authority. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Government Servant: (i) if the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses [(i) to (iva)] of Rule 8 should be imposed on him, it may, in consultation with the Lending Authority, pass such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the Borrowing Authority and the Lending Authority the services of the Government Servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the Lending Authority. (ii) if the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 should be imposed on him, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the Lending Authority and transmit it to the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon the Lending Authority may, if it is the Disciplinary Authority pass such orders thereon as it deems necessary, or, if it is not the Disciplinary Authority, submit the case to the Disciplinary Authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in passing any such order the Disciplinary Authority shall comply with the provisions of [Rule 11A]” 9.14. In terms of this rule, the Borrowing Authority shall have the power of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceeding against him. There is a check and balance brought about by the introduction of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules which mandates that the Borrowing Authority shall not take any disciplinary proceedings against such Government Servant or place him under suspension before the approval of the Lending Authority. 9.15. In terms of sub-rule (2) thereof, the Borrowing Authority if of the opinion that if any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 should be imposed on him, it may, in consultation with the Lending Authority, pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary. 9.15. In terms of sub-rule (2) thereof, the Borrowing Authority if of the opinion that if any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 should be imposed on him, it may, in consultation with the Lending Authority, pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary. In terms of sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, if the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 should be imposed on such Lent Officer, it shall replace the services at the disposal of the Lending Authority and transmit it to the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon Lending Authority may, if it is the Disciplinary Authority pass such orders thereon as it deems necessary. Thus, in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules, the Borrowing Authority shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for placing Lent Officer under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. It can also impose penalty specified under clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 in consultation with the Lending Authority. It is only when penalties under clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 were to be imposed, then the Lent Officer’s services has to be placed at the disposal of the Lending Authority. Thus, though Rules 9, 10-A and 14- A of the CCA Rules speak of the Disciplinary Authority, it is only Rule 15 which speaks of the Lent Officer and the powers of the Borrowing Authority. 9.16. Rule 15 of the CCA Rules confers power on the Borrowing Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings in the same manner as that of the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority. 9.17. Thus, the Borrowing Authority steps into the shoes of the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority insofar as initiating disciplinary proceedings are concerned. However, insofar as levy of penalty is concerned, the same would have to be done in consultation with the Lending Authority. If penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 are to be imposed and if the Borrowing Authority and the Lending Authority have a consensus, the penalty would ultimately be imposed by the Borrowing Authority. However, insofar as levy of penalty is concerned, the same would have to be done in consultation with the Lending Authority. If penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 are to be imposed and if the Borrowing Authority and the Lending Authority have a consensus, the penalty would ultimately be imposed by the Borrowing Authority. It is only when there is difference of opinion, the services would have to be placed at the disposal of the Lending Authority for imposing penalties or otherwise. Thus, insofar as penalties under clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 are concerned, the Borrowing Authority itself could impose penalties if there is consensus with Lending Authority. 9.18. In the present case, the Borrowing Authority namely, the PRD who steps into the shoes of the Appointing Authority in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCA Rules, has entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta. The enquiry having been completed and the recommendation of the Uplokayukta has been forwarded to the actual Appointing Authority namely PWD and the second show cause notice has been issued by the PWD and not the Borrowing Authority. Thus, the punishment which is sought to be imposed of compulsory retirement is that done by PWD and not the PRD. 9.19. In the above background, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the action taken by the Borrowing Authority. The Borrowing Authority can entrust enquiry to the Lokayukta in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCA Rules without obtaining any prior permission/approval of the Lending Authority. The imposing of penalties in terms of clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8 of CCA Rules would have to be done in consultation with the Lending Authority and imposition of penalties under clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 of CCA Rules can be done only by the Lending Authority by Borrowing Authority replacing the services with the Lending Authority, the second show cause issued by the Lending Authority, it is for the Lending Authority to impose punishment under clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 of CCA Rules, which includes the punishment of compulsory retirement. 10. Answer to Point No. (2): Whether the present writ petition is maintainable? 10.1. 10. Answer to Point No. (2): Whether the present writ petition is maintainable? 10.1. In view of my answer to point No. (1), the petitioner being a Civil Servant cannot challenge the second show cause notice by way of the present Writ Petition. There being alternative and efficacious remedy in terms of an appeal provided to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, it is that remedy the petitioner had to exercise. 11. Answer to Point No. (3): What Order? 11.1. Both on merits as also on maintainability, there are no grounds made out by the petitioner. 12. As such, I pass the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition stands dismissed.