ORDER : (T.M. NADAF, J.) Though the matter is listed for ‘Preliminary Hearing’, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA, heard for final disposal. 2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘the Tribunal’, for short) in Application No.1134/2018, whereby, the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 – Government in proceedings No. 2017 vide Annexure – A16 entrusting the disciplinary enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules of 1957’, for short) is quashed. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this case are as under:- On the compliant of one Sri.Bhavani Ramprasad S/o Krishna Prasad, the Karnataka Lokayukta initiated a suo- moto enquiry under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (the ‘Act of 1984’, for short) and directed the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Hassan to investigate and report. The Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’, for short) said to have submitted his report stating that there are several violations by the license holders i.e., allowing the public to consume liquour in the shops and offering to sell liquor at the higher rates than the MRP. The Excise Department has issued notices on such violations to the licensees even registered criminal cases, which were called in question before several forums including this Court and interim orders were granted on said notices and criminal proceedings. Further, it has come in the report that despite, the Excise Officers registering criminal cases against the licensees, the violations are being repeated and the respondent No.1 failed to control the same. 4. Considering the report of the I.O. and after affording an opportunity to the respondent, the petitioner forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 holding that there is a prima facie lapses and dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.1, which amounts to misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1966’, for short) with a recommendation for entrustment of the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957. On the materials found in the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, the respondent No.2 – Government proceeded to pass an order on 11.10.2017 entrusting departmental enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957, against the respondent No.1. 5. The respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order of entrustment filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.1134/2018. The contentions of the petitioner before the Tribunal were that, on the very same complaint of said Sri.Bhavani Ramprasad to the Excise Joint Commissioner, Mysuru, the departmental superiors conducted a preliminary enquiry/investigation and came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the complaint as per the report dated 21.08.2015. Subsequently, as per the communication issued by the Excise Commissioner dated 24.03.2017, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hassan, furnished another report dated 19.04.2017 stating that there is no basis for the complaint. Subsequently, on the communication of the Excise Commissioner dated10.05.2017, a report by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hassan, dated 25.05.2017 submitted, which was forwarded to the Government stating that there is no basis for the complaint. 6. The case of the respondent No.1 is that, his superior officials consistently have given the report that allegations found in the complaint identical to the one given to the petitioner are false as suitable actions have been taken by the respondent No.1 and other officials against the licensees on violation of terms of license. There is no lapse or dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent No.1 or on the other officers of the Excise Department. However, the Lokayukta on the suo-moto action initiated under Section 9 of the Act of 1984, collected the information from its police and forwarded a report without considering reports of the Superior Officers of the Excise Department of respondent No.1 and recommended for enquiry and sought for entrustment under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957. The respondent No.2 – Government without properly appreciating the reports submitted by the Excise Department, only on the basis of report submitted by the petitioner herein, mechanically passed an order of entrustment on 11.10.2017 and sought for quashing the order as the same was not in accordance with law as contemplated under the provisions of Act of 1984 and Rules of 1957. The petitioner, on notice issued by the Tribunal, appeared and supported the report as well as the order passed by the Government thereon and sought to dismiss the application. 7. The Tribunal upon considering the rival contentions and on perusal of materials before it, comes to a conclusion that the impugned order is nothing but the verbatim of the entire preamble culled out in the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 and the report is nothing but verbatim recital of the investigation by the Lokayukta Police. There is no direct material to contemplate lapses or dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct attributable to the respondent No.1 held that there is no prima facie finding of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, proceeded to allow the application, quashing the order of entrustment dated 11.10.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure – A16. It is this order called in question in this petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta. 8. Heard Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for the respondent No.2. 9. Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy K., reiterating the stand before the Tribunal submitted that, the petitioner having found the prima facie case against the respondent No.1 on the basis of the investigation material submitted by the Lokayukta Police, forwarded a report as contemplated under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, recommending departmental enquiry and for entrustment under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957. The Government on the report having found prima facie materials against the respondent No.1, proceeded to accept the report and passed an order entrusting a full-fledged departmental enquiry under Rule 14A of the Rules of 1957, to the petitioner – Upa- Lokayukta – 2. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the State has passed the order by applying its mind after having come to the conclusion that there are allegations prima facie calling for a departmental enquiry against the respondent No.1 and sought to quash the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. 10. Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA submitted that the State has not called in question the order of the Tribunal quashing the order of entrustment dated11.10.2017. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA, perused the entire writ petition papers, the only question that arises for our consideration is:- 1. 10. Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA submitted that the State has not called in question the order of the Tribunal quashing the order of entrustment dated11.10.2017. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA, perused the entire writ petition papers, the only question that arises for our consideration is:- 1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case that order passed by the Tribunal is perverse, unsustainable in law and calls for any interference at the hands of this Court? 12. Our answer for the above question is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:- REASONS 13. A perusal of order of entrustment dated11.10.2017 at Annexure – R to the writ petition (Annexure – A16 in the application), shows that, there are several notices issued by the Excise Department to the licensees for the violation of Section 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, which were called in question before several forums including this Court and interim orders were granted on the said notices/criminal cases. There were totally 110 cases registered for the year 2014-2015 in respect of violation of licence conditions. 14. Even in the order of entrustment, it is forthcoming that, as per the allegations in the complaint before the Lokayukta that the bribe amount being collected by one Chandru on behalf of the Department, it was found in the investigation that there was no such person by name Chandru either working as a permanent employee in the Department or working on the contract basis. Even it is forthcoming that there is no such person by name Chandru in existence, as no materials of his identification were available. There were several notices issued for the violation of license but in view of pendency of appeal and interim orders, no further actions could have been taken. In the entire order of entrustment, there is nothing on record to suggest that there is a prima facie case made out against the respondent No.1 on the basis of the report forwarded by the Lokayukta that the conduct of respondent No.1 is unbecoming of a Government Servant as contemplated under the provisions of Rules of 1957 warranting an enquiry muchless a Departmental enquiry. As observed by the Tribunal, the order of entrustment is nothing but verbatim of the report submitted by the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984. As observed by the Tribunal, the order of entrustment is nothing but verbatim of the report submitted by the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984. There is no independent application of mind as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, by the respondent No.2 – Government. That apart, there is no prima facie case made out from the record. On the other hand, the reports of the higher officials of the Excise Department clearly show that there is no merit in the complaint and there was neither any lapse nor dereliction of duty attributable to the respondent No.1. 15. The Tribunal at paragraphs No.9, 10 and 11 has stated reasons for the conclusion resulting in quashing of order of entrustment dated 11.10.2017, which reads as follows:- “9. The first respondent state has considered the Upa-Lokayukta 12(3) report. It is not known whether the government sought the comments of the Excise Commissioner or not in the matter and if it was not being sought by the government, the purpose of the Excise commissioner seeking independent reports from his field personnel. But a plain reading of the impugned order indicates that even if the government did seek report from the Excise Commissioner, it has not been relied on by the first respondent state in considering the action on the Upa-Lokayukta Report. 10. In the impugned order, the entire preamble has been culled out of the 12(3) Lokayukta Report verbatim. There is a verbatim recital of the Lokayukta Police investigation report culled out simply culled out from the 12(3) report. A plain reading of the investigation Report does not reveal anything culpable against the applicant at all. Yet, it is stated in the preamble that ‘on the whole, as contended by the petitioner, the violation of excise act and rules by the licences is true’ and it is stated that the applicant has prima facie indulged in dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of a government servant. Even a general finding of violation of Excise Act and rules, does not attribute anything remotely incriminating on the applicant in the entire appreciation of the investigation report in the preamble of the impugned order. Even a general finding of violation of Excise Act and rules, does not attribute anything remotely incriminating on the applicant in the entire appreciation of the investigation report in the preamble of the impugned order. As has been stated in the applicant’s reply to the Lokayukta notice, several situations are beyond the realm of the applicant to control and decisions and orders of higher other offices and institutions have a effect on the situation at hand. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no insinuating material that has been found against the applicant in the investigation report with regard to taking bribes, obtaining bribes from licensees and dereliction of duty, which three specific issues are noted in the complaint. It is not known how the prima facie finding of conduct unbecoming of a government servant has been arrived at in the impugned order as we find no relevant prima facie material to support this finding. Therefore, the decision to entrust conduct of disciplinary enquiry against the applicant is without application of mind being clearly perverse and therefore untenable under law. 11. In view of the discussions above, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for our interference even at the stage of the entrustment of the disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta Institution. In our considered view, no public purpose is served by launching into a roving disciplinary proceeding without any prima facie material whatsoever.” 16. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the petition sans merit. Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER i) The writ petition calling in question the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.1134/2018 is hereby dismissed. ii) No order as to costs.