ORDER : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been taken together as common facts are involved. 2. W.P.No.7432/2024 has been filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.3945/2022 filed by the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.22478/2025. By the said order, the Tribunal has allowed the application and has set aside the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the enquiry was entrusted to the Lokayukta. 3. The necessary facts for the purpose of decision in these writ petitions briefly stated are that the respondent No.3 was working as Assistant Director of Economic Statistics and while he was working as Assistant Statistics Officer in the District Health and Family Welfare Office, a complaint was lodged by one Dr. Nagraj alleging that the wife of the complainant was practising in "Rakshitha Clinic", Bengaluru of Dr. Sumangala who had applied for renewal of registration for Ultrasound Scanning in Rakshita Clinic for the period from 02.12.2007 to 01.12.2010 under the provisions of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. 4. It was further alleged that the licence had not been renewed till November 2008. The respondent No.3, along with two others, came to the said clinic on 04.11.2008 and introduced themselves as officials of the Health and Family Welfare Department. They gave a notice to the wife of the complainant threatening her that she would be sent to jail and she was asked to contact the respondent No.3 and gave his mobile number. When the wife of the complainant met the respondent No.3, he demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- saying that illegal activities were being carried on in the said clinic. When payment of bribe was refused, the respondent No.3 asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- to get the work done. 5. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe to the respondent No.3, he approached the Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City Division and lodged a complaint and on that basis, a case was registered against the respondent No.3 in Crime No.81/2008 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). 6. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe to the respondent No.3, he approached the Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City Division and lodged a complaint and on that basis, a case was registered against the respondent No.3 in Crime No.81/2008 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). 6. The Lokayukta thereafter has initiated suo motu disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 as the respondent No.3 had committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Lokayukta sent a report under Section 12(3) to the Disciplinary Authority recommending to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3. 7. The Competent Authority, vide order dated 10.01.2012, entrusted the Lokayukta to go on with the disciplinary enquiry. Article of Charges was issued against the respondent No.3 on 12.07.2012 by the Lokayuktha and notice was issued to the respondent No.3 to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Since the respondent No.3/DGO had remained absent, he was placed ex parte and accordingly, the matter was posted for ex parte evidence. 8. Subsequently, in the month of November 2012, the DGO entered appearance through his advocate and accordingly, the order placing the respondent No.3 ex parte in the enquiry was recalled and the oral statement of the DGO was recorded. 9. While the disciplinary enquiry was thus proceeding, in the year 2014, the entire case was transferred from ARE-4 to ARE- 5 vide order dated 01.03.2014 of the Registrar of the Lokayukta. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and he was not cross-examined by the DGO and the same was taken as nil. Accordingly, summons were issued to CW.2 and in spite of issuance of summons and bailable warrant to CW.2, he did not present in the enquiry. When the matter stood thus, the entire case file was again transferred from ARE-5 to ARE-11 as per the order dated 03.08.2016 of the Upalokayukta-1. The case file would reveal that on several occasions, the DGO and his counsel remained absent and did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Again in the year 2017, the entire case file was transferred from ARE-11 to ARE-10 on the ground that the DGO was accused in Special Case No.159/2009 on the file of the 23 rd Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, which was disposed of by the Enquiry Officer of ARE-11-V.G.Bopaiah. Again in the year 2017, the entire case file was transferred from ARE-11 to ARE-10 on the ground that the DGO was accused in Special Case No.159/2009 on the file of the 23 rd Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, which was disposed of by the Enquiry Officer of ARE-11-V.G.Bopaiah. Since the Enquiry Officer of ARE-11 was not competent to proceed with the departmental enquiry, the entire case file was transferred to ARE-10 as per the order dated 06.04.2017. 10. Subsequently, on 17.01.2019, the case was called by the Enquiry Officer on which date, the DGO remained absent and accordingly, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to pass an order placing the DGO ex parte in the enquiry as per the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. While the summons were issued for examination of the witnesses, the counsel appearing for the DGO filed an application and sought for recall of the order placing the DGO ex parte in the enquiry. The said application came to be allowed. Subsequently, in the month of February 2019, the witness-PW.1, the complainant, was recalled by the counsel for the DGO by filing the recall application and accordingly, PW.1 was recalled and he was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the DGO. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.2 and accordingly, on 18.11.2021, PW.2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the DGO. 11. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3/DGO filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.1178/2021 wherein, he sought for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director of Statistics in the respondent No.1-department as certain allegations of the year 2008 were subject matter of criminal proceedings as well as the Lokayukta enquiry. The contention raised by the respondent No.3 before the Tribunal was that he had been acquitted in the year 2014 in the criminal case and so far, the enquiry was not completed by the Lokayukta though the same was initiated in the year 2008. 12. The Tribunal, after hearing the respondent No.3, allowed the said application on 02.09.2021 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Tribunal on 02.09.2021 in Application No.1178/2021, the respondent No.3 was promoted. 12. The Tribunal, after hearing the respondent No.3, allowed the said application on 02.09.2021 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Tribunal on 02.09.2021 in Application No.1178/2021, the respondent No.3 was promoted. However, further promotion to the cadre of the Deputy Director has not been granted for which the applicant has approached the Tribunal in contempt proceedings. 13. In the meantime, the Government had issued the order dated 10.01.2022 withdrawing the Government Order dated 10.01.2012, whereby the disciplinary enquiry was entrusted to the Upalokayukta, on the ground that the domestic enquiry against the DGO was not completed even after lapse of nine years and though the DGO had been acquitted by the Special Court in the criminal trial, the departmental inquiry was kept pending without any further progress. 14. The office of the Lokayukta brought it to the notice of the Government that withdrawal of the Government Order/Entrustment Order dated 10.01.2012 was without following the procedure and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 cancelled the Government Order dated 11.01.2022 and proceeded to entrust the enquiry back to the Lokayukta by its order dated 03.09.2022. 15. The respondent No.3, being aggrieved by the said order of entrusting the enquiry back to the Lokayukta vide order dated 03.09.2022, filed Application No.3945/2022 before the Tribunal and sought for quashing of the Entrustment Order dated 03.09.2022. The Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and order 05.10.2023, has held that there is no plausible explanation by the respondents for the prolonged delay of 14 years in concluding the enquiry. The Government itself had entrusted the enquiry vide order dated 10.01.2012 to the Lokayukta, but the said order was withdrawn as per the Government Order dated 11.01.2022 and the enquiry was entrusted to the Joint Director (State Income, Industries and Prices) [SIP], however, it was directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. This order was passed on 28.01.2022. But again, the Government took out the Enquiry proceedings from the Joint Director (SIP), Directorate of Economic and Statistical Department and again entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta by passing the order dated 03.09.2022. It was said that the 14 years' delay from the date of the incident has not been properly explained by the respondent-authorities and thus, the said order was cancelled. 16. It was said that the 14 years' delay from the date of the incident has not been properly explained by the respondent-authorities and thus, the said order was cancelled. 16. Learned counsel for the Lokayukta has submitted that the delay in concluding the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 was not only due to administrative reasons, but also due to the respondent No.3's intentional absence before the Enquiry Officer, which is evident from the facts narrated above. The respondent No.3 was placed ex parte on number of occasions in the enquiry and thereafter, he filed the application for recalling the order placing him ex parte. Therefore, putting the blame on the Lokayukta for not concluding the enquiry is unjustified and it is the respondent No.3 who himself was liable for delaying the enquiry. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that though the enquiry started in the month of November 2012, the evidence commenced only in the year 2014 and in the month of September 2014, the complainant was examined as PW.1. PW.1 was not cross-examined by the respondent No.3 and the same was taken as nil. Thereafter, the summons were issued to CW.2 and when the matter was pending for further evidence, the case was transferred from ARE-5 to ARE-11 as per the order of the Upalokayukta on 03.08.2016. Thereafter, the DGO remained absent continuously and subsequently. the entire case file was again transferred from ARE-11 to ARE-10 on the ground that the DGO was accused in Special Case No.159/2009 which was disposed of by the Enquiry Officer of ARE-11. 18. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to pass an ex parte order against the respondent No.3/DGO as provided under the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. The applicant/respondent No.3 has cross-examined PW2 thoroughly and at that stage, the Lokayukta received the Government Order dated 11.01.2022. Again, vide order dated 03.09.2022, the matter was re-entrusted to the Lokayukta. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Lokayukta and the learned counsel for the respondents. 20. The respondent No.3 has justified the order passed by the Tribunal. Again, vide order dated 03.09.2022, the matter was re-entrusted to the Lokayukta. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Lokayukta and the learned counsel for the respondents. 20. The respondent No.3 has justified the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the facts would reveal that the respondent No.3 himself was responsible for delaying the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings to a great extent and therefore, the impugned order which has been passed for setting aside the Entrustment Order dated dated 03.09.2022 on the ground of unexplained delay of 14 years is not justified. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal and request the Lokayukta to complete the enquiry within a period of two months and submit the report to the Disciplinary Authority for taking appropriate decision on the enquiry report as per the relevant provisions. The Disciplinary Authority should take the decision on the enquiry report so submitted by the Lokayukta within a period of one month from the date of submission of the enquiry report. The respondent No.3 must co-operate in the enquiry and should not seek any adjournment in the enquiry. 21. W.P.No.22478/2025 has been filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.3 in W.P.No.7432/2024, impugning the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.88/2025, whereby the petitioner's prayer for release of his pensionary benefits including DCRG, commutation value, earned leave encashment and all other pensionary benefits with interest @18% p.a., has been rejected on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the respondent No.3 as per the order passed by the Tribunal on 05.10.2023 in Application No.3945/2022 and W.P.No.7432/2024 filed by the Lokayukta was still pending for consideration before the High Court. It has been further observed that the petitioner would not be entitled for pension and pensionary benefits till the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. Only after exoneration from all the charges or disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner would get the cause of action to claim the benefits and therefore, the Tribunal held the application as premature and dismissed the same. 22. Only after exoneration from all the charges or disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner would get the cause of action to claim the benefits and therefore, the Tribunal held the application as premature and dismissed the same. 22. As we have set aside the order dated 05.10.2023 passed in Application No.3945/2022 and allowed W.P.No.7432/2024 wherein, a direction has been given for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, we dispose of W.P.No.22478/2025 also in terms of the order passed by us today in W.P.No.7432/2024. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.