ORDER : (S.G. PANDIT, J.) The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 26.04.2019 in Application No.1892/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’), whereunder the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the third respondent, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture with liberty to respondent No.1 to take appropriate decision on the recommendation dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-A10) of the Upa-Lokayukta and to pass orders in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the second respondent-State Government under Government Order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) entrusted the enquiry against respondent No.3 to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). In terms of the said entrustment order, the Enquiry Officer nominated by the Upa-Lokayukta issued articles of charge dated 25.08.2010 and after detailed enquiry, enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta was submitted to the State Government. The third respondent being the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report to the fourth respondent and thereafter third respondent passed impugned order of punishment at Annexure-A14 dated 26.03.2019, imposing punishment of dismissal on the fourth respondent in exercise of power under Rule 8(viii) of the CCA Rules. The fourth respondent questioning the said order of dismissal was before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.1892/2019. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 26.04.2019 on the ground that the Director of Agriculture nor the Commissioner of Department of Agriculture have no locus standi to issue second show cause notice and consequent impugned order of dismissal, quashed the impugned order only on the ground of incompetency with liberty to the first respondent-Government to take action in accordance with law. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 9 of CCA Rules would submit that the third respondent, Commissioner and the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the fourth respondent – Second Division Assistant would possess competence and jurisdiction to impose punishment. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 9 of CCA Rules would submit that the third respondent, Commissioner and the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the fourth respondent – Second Division Assistant would possess competence and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The Tribunal committed grave error in not noticing that the third respondent is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority in respect of the fourth respondent-Second Division Assistant. It is his further submission that though enquiry is conducted by the Upa- Lokayukta on entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority shall impose the punishment. The power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 of CCA Rules shall be read along with Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. 5. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has failed to assign proper reasons so also failed to take note of the fact that the charges of corruption against the fourth respondent as proved. Learned counsel would also contend that the Tribunal could not have acted as an Appellate Authority and could not have re- appreciated the material or evidence on record. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the fourth respondent brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance to the remand under impugned order of the Tribunal, the first respondent passed order dated 07.09.2020 which is produced along with memo dated 24.10.2024, exonerating the fourth respondent from the charges. 7. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the State Government has not challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and on the other hand, the State Government accepted the order of the Tribunal and has acted upon the said order to pass order dated 07.09.2020 to exonerate the petitioner from the charges. Further, learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya would point out that under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Government alone could impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8, irrespective of the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Further, learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya would point out that under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Government alone could impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8, irrespective of the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, “Whether in an enquiry conducted by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, Government alone shall be the Disciplinary Authority and competent to impose any penalties specified in Rule 8 or the Disciplinary Authority could impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of CCA Rules?” 9. Answer to the above point would be that wherever enquiry is entrusted to Lokayukta/Upa- Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of CCA Rules and the Disciplinary Authority other than the Government is incompetent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of CCA Rules in such enquiry. 10. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the enquiry against respondent No.4 was entrusted to Upa-Lokayukta under Government order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. On submission of enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta, second show cause notice was issued to fourth respondent by the third respondent- Commissioner, Department of Agriculture. Thereafter order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure-A14) imposing punishment of dismissal under Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules was passed by the third respondent-Commissioner of Agriculture. 11. No doubt, the Commissioner, department of Agriculture is the Disciplinary Authority insofar as the Second Division Assistant working at the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture. However, when the Upa- Lokayukta or Lokayukta conducts enquiry on entrustment by the Government under Rule 14A of CCA Rules, in terms of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, the Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of CCA Rules. 12. Rule 14-A(1) and 2(d) to (e) of CCA Rules, which are relevant for the instant case reads as follows: “14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta. 12. Rule 14-A(1) and 2(d) to (e) of CCA Rules, which are relevant for the instant case reads as follows: “14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta. - (1) The provisions of sub rule (2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 9 to 11A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government Servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayuukta or an Uplokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on a reference from Government]1 2[or where offences alleged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21st day of December, 1992. (2) (a) Where on investigation into any allegation against – (i) a member of the State Civil Services Group-“A” or Group-“B” or (ii) a member of the State Civil Services Group-A or Group-B and a member of the State Civil Services Group-C or Group-D or (iii) a member of the State Civil Services Group-“C” or Group-“D”, the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta or (before the twenty first day of December, 1922) the Inspector General of Police of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police is of the opinion]3 1[that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall 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 Disciplinary 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 conducted either by the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the same may be, or an officer on the staff of the Lokayukta authorized by the Lokayukta, or the Upalokayukta to conduct the inquiry; Provided that the inquiry shall 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 shall not be conducted by any person other than the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta or an Additional Registrar (Inquiries). Provided further that an inquiry against a Government Servant not lower in rank than that of a Deputy Commissioner shall 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 authorized to conduct an inquiry under clause (b) shall not have the power to appoint another officer to conduct it wholly or in part. (c) The Lokayukta, the Upalokayukta or the Officer authorized under clause (b) to conduct an inquiry shall conduct it in accordance with the provisions of rule 11 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this rule and for that purpose shall have the powers of the Disciplinary 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 Upalokayukta, as the case may be, shall be sent to the Government. (e) On receipt of the record under clause (d) the Government shall take action in accordance with the provisions of rule 11A and in all such cases the Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8.” 13. Rule 14-A starts with a non-abstante clause. On reading Rule 14A(1), it is clear that the provisions of Sub- Rule(2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11A and 13, be applicable for the purposes of proceedings against Government servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta. 14. In the light of the above, where investigation and enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules is conducted by the Upa-Lokayukta or Lokayukta, Rule 9 of CCA Rules which specifies the Disciplinary Authorities to impose penalties specified in Rule 8 on any Government servant would not be applicable. Where an investigation and enquiry is conducted by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta in terms of Rule 14-A (1) and 2(e), Government shall be the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of CCA Rules. In the light of the above specific provision, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14-A shall be read along with Rule 9 of CCA Rules in the facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. In the light of the above specific provision, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14-A shall be read along with Rule 9 of CCA Rules in the facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the application on the ground of competency, with liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 15. It is also relevant to note that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal quashing the order of penalty and remanding the matter to the competent authority to take appropriate action is not challenged by the Government. When the Disciplinary Authority/Government itself has not challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is not open for the Enquiring Authority to challenge such order. Admittedly, accepting the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the State Government has passed fresh order dated 07.09.2020 exonerating the fourth respondent from the alleged misconduct. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 17.09.2020 exonerating fourth respondent from the alleged misconduct is without reference to the Tribunal’s order, hence the order cannot be sustained. Merely because the said order would not refer to the remand order of the Tribunal, it cannot be said that it is not an order passed in accordance with law. In fact, it is an order passed by the competent authority in terms of Rule 14-A (1) and 2(e) of CCA Rules. 17. The petitioner-institution i.e., the Karnataka Lokayukta is a responsible institution and moreso, it shall act with more responsibility. When Rule 14-A of CCA Rules is clear with regard to procedure to be followed in the enquiry entrusted to Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta and when it specifies the authority competent to impose penalty, the petitioner-enquiry authority cannot contend contrary Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. In the matter of departmental enquiry against Government servants, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta could act only under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. The petitioner-Lokayukta ought to have been more responsible before filing the above frivolous writ petition, that too when the Tribunal has granted liberty to the competent authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 18. With the above, writ petition stands dismissed.