ORDER : S.G.PANDIT, J. This writ petition is filed by the Lokayukta represented by its Registrar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 18.10.2022 in Application No.10294/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein, the Tribunal quashed the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-A5) to the petitioner solely on the ground that the State could not have entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner in respect of a retired employee under Rule 14-A of KCS (CC &A) Rules, 1957. [hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules”] 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Anil Kale for the petitioner, learned Principal Government Advocate Sri G.K. Hiregoudar for respondent Nos.2 & 3, and learned counsel Sri Satish K. with Sri Suresh Bhat for respondent No.1 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri Anil Kale for petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the Order dated 14.05.2019 entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules to the petitioner institution on the ground that the State could not have exercised power under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, to entrust the enquiry to the petitioner in respect of a retired government servant. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to impugned order and submits that the enquiry was entrusted to the petitioner not only under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, but also under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Therefore, he submits that the impugned entrustment order is proper and correct. Further, he submits that merely because the order indicates Rule 14A of CCA Rules, the Tribunal could not have quashed the order of entrustment. He submits that when the State has power to entrust the inquiry against the retired Government servant under Rule 214 of KCSRs, mere mentioning of Rule 14A of CCA Rules would not vitiate entrustment of enquiry to the Lokayukta in respect of a retired Government servant. Further, learned counsel would submit that if this Court were to accept the contention of the petitioner Lokayukta, the time spent before the Tribunal and before this Court shall be deducted for the purpose of issuing articles of charge under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Further, learned counsel would submit that if this Court were to accept the contention of the petitioner Lokayukta, the time spent before the Tribunal and before this Court shall be deducted for the purpose of issuing articles of charge under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Satish K for respondent No.1 would submit that the entrustment of inquiry under Order dated 14.05.2019 relates to the incidents alleged to have taken place during the year 2017- 2018 and as such, he submits that no articles of charge could be issued as on this day against respondent No.1.Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is ‘whether the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order of entrustment dated 14.05.2019 issued under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules solely on the ground that the said provision could not have been invoked against a retired government servant?’ 6. The answer to the above point would be in negative for the following reasons:- 7. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. Subsequent to his retirement, the second respondent under Government Order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure A5) entrusted the inquiry against respondent No.1 to the petitioner Lokayukta under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs r/w Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. It is true that the provisions of CCA Rules cannot be invoked against a retired government servant. However, Rule 214 provides for initiating an inquiry against a retired government servant. Taking note of Rule 214 of KCSRs, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.147723/2020 with connected matters disposed of on 16.08.2022 has held that enquiry against the retired Government servant subject to the provisions of Rule 214 could be entrusted to the petitioner Lokayukta. The relevant paragraphs reads as follows:- “In the case of Dr. M. Basappa Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka & Others , 2017 (3) Kar.L.J. 160 “ 13. We have carefully bestowed our anxious considerations to the said provisions and Rules quoted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Ruling of this Court in ILR 1962 Mys. 900 (supra). Specifically Rule2(d) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1967 reads thus: "2. State of Karnataka & Others , 2017 (3) Kar.L.J. 160 “ 13. We have carefully bestowed our anxious considerations to the said provisions and Rules quoted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Ruling of this Court in ILR 1962 Mys. 900 (supra). Specifically Rule2(d) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1967 reads thus: "2. (d) "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka." On meaningful understanding of the said decision and the definition clause, it is crystal clear that, the Disciplinary Proceedings cannot be initiated and proceeded against the retired Government Servants under the said rules, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as in these rules, the present tense is used sofar as the Government Servants are concerned. Therefore, we have consider the provision under Rule 214 of the said Rules, to know as to whether the rule is applicable or not to the facts of this case. 14. The legislators in their wisdom have introduced Rule 214 to KCS (CCA) Rules, by way of substitution by Notification in No. FD 36 SRS 90, dated 10-10-1990 with effect from 18-10-1990. 15. The Rule 214(2)(b), 214(6)(a) and 214(6)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules are the relevant provisions which are necessary so far as this case is concerned which deals with the Departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant and for withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence by the retired Government Servant. For the purpose of meaningful understanding and discussion, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the said rules ie., 214(1)(a), 214(1)(b)and 214(2)(b), as under: "214. For the purpose of meaningful understanding and discussion, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the said rules ie., 214(1)(a), 214(1)(b)and 214(2)(b), as under: "214. (1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence.- The Government reserve themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. (b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension.-The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a foreign employer under whom the Government Servant has worked on deputation or otherwise. If in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: .... (2)... (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government Servant during his service." The above said provisions disclose that, the provisions have been very much in existence as on the date of retirement of the petitioner herein. The said provisions have been in vogue since 18-10-1990. Rule 214(1)(a) and 214(1)(b) recognises the withholding of pension or withdrawing the pension or recovery of the pension if any disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings are initiated during the period when the Government Servant was in service. Sub- rule (2)(b)(i) to (2)(b)(iii) of Rule 214 refer to the departmental proceedings so far they relate to a retired Government Servants are concerned. Sub- rule (2)(b)(i) to (2)(b)(iii) of Rule 214 refer to the departmental proceedings so far they relate to a retired Government Servants are concerned. Sub-rule (2)(b) specifically indicates that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, the same shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct. It clearly empowers the Disciplinary Authority or Government to institute such disciplinary proceedings with the sanction of the Government, and it shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Sub-clause (iii) contemplates that such proceedings shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government Servant during his service. That means, the Disciplinary Authority itself can conduct the enquiry or by such an authority as the Government or the authority may direct and such enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to the Government Servants as if the Government Servant was in service i.e., to say Rules 11, 11-A and 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules so far as the procedural aspects are concerned. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if Rale 214(2)(b) states that the Government can take action against the retired employees, and it specifically imposes responsibility on the Government to deal with the retired Government Servant, it cannot delegate its power to any other person or authority. Further, he submitted that, even if the Government refers the matter to any other person or authority invoking the provision under Rule 214(2)(b)(iii), in turn, it should follow Rule 11(1) to 11(5) and thereafter only it can refer the matter to any other authority; that the authority to which the Departmental Enquiry was transferred has no jurisdiction to frame charges and then proceed with the matter; that it is the fundamental duty of the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges and receive the statement of objections from the delinquent employee and thereafter if it is satisfied, an enquiry has to be proceeded with, only then the State Government can refer the matter to the other authority. It is further argued that, in this particular case, the Disciplinary Authority has not framed the charges or supplied the articles of charges to the delinquent employee and not taken the written statement before referring the matter to Lokayukta for enquiry. Therefore, the entire procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently by Inquiry Officer is vitiated by serious incurable procedural defect and it vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, un that ground also, the order passed by the Government has to be set aside. 19. Rule 214(2)(b)(iii) empowers the Disciplinary Authority or the Government, to conduct enquiry through such authority and in such place as the Government may direct, in accordance with the procedure applicable. This clearly indicates that the Government can conduct enquiry through anyother authority, but the other authority should follow the procedure applicable to department inquiries. Therefore, it goes without saying that Rules 11 & 14-A of CCA Rules are virtually mutatis mutandis applicable for the purpose of conducting Departmental Inquiry. 26. However house of these submissions deserve to be accepted. Of course, Rule 11(1) to 11(6) of the CCA Rules imposes responsibility on the Disciplinary Authority if Disciplinary Authority and Enquiring Authority. are different. However, as already referred, the provisions of Rule 14-A (a special provision) of the Rules, specify that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, Rule 14-A would be applicable for the purpose of proceeding against Government) Servant whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act or reference from the Government. Further, reading the sub-rule (2)(c) of Rule 14-A of the Rules, would clarify that all the powers vested with the Disciplinary Authority, can also be exercised by the Lokayukta while dealing with the matter conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the delinquent employee. Therefore, there is no confusion at all regarding the powers of Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta even when they themselves have investigated the matter with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. If Rule 11(6) of the Rules, and Rule 14-A are read jointly and homogeneity what emerges is, even if the written statement of the delinquent is not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and no articles of charges and statement of imputations were framed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Lokayukta can perform such acts while dealing with the departmental enquiry of a delinquent employee. In view of harmonious reading of Rules 11 and 14-A of the CCA Rules as noted above, in our opinion, the Inquiry Officer who is entrusted with the work by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta can definitely frame articles of charges and statement of imputations against the delinquent employee and proceed further to enquire into the matter. 27. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that all the powers of the Disciplinary Authority are fully vested with the Enquiring Authority under Section 14-A(2)(c) of the said Rules for the purposes of enquiry. It is virtuall the special procedure to be adopted by the Lokayukta with reference to the delinquent employee. In view of the same, we do not find any strong reason to quash the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted by the Additional Registrar of Lokayukta, inasmuch as the same is not vitiated by any serious incurable defect.” 8. The Tribunal erred in quashing the Order of Entrustment dated 14.05.2019, solely on the ground that the enquiry is entrusted against a retired Government servant under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. The Tribunal failed to notice that the Order of Entrustment is also made under Rule 214 of KCSRs. When the state’s power to initiate enquiry against a retired Government servant could be traced to Rule-214 subject to its limitation, mere mentioning of Rule-14A of CCA Rules would not vitiate the order of entrustment of enquiry. 9. As we have come to the conclusion that the entrusment of inquiry order dated 14.05.2019 is in accordance with law, i.e. Rule 214 of KCSRs, the petitioner- Lokayukta shall have to proceed further in pursuance to the entrustment order. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as on this day, articles of charge against the respondent cannot be issued since it would be barred by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. It is to be noted that respondent No.1 was before the Tribunal from February 2020 till its disposal on 18.10.2022 under impugned order and the Lokayukta is before this Court subsequently. Therefore, the time spent before the Tribunal and before this Court by respondent No.1 as well as the petitioner shall have to be excluded for calculating limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSR. Since respondent no. 1 was before the tribunal and before this Court, he cannot take advantage of the pending proceedings to contend bared by limitation for issuing articles of charge. 11. Since respondent no. 1 was before the tribunal and before this Court, he cannot take advantage of the pending proceedings to contend bared by limitation for issuing articles of charge. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 18.10.2022 in Application No.10294/2020 is hereby set aside. iii. The petitioner Lokayukta shall proceed in pursuance to the order of entrustment of inquiry dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure A5) forthwith without any delay. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration.