THE REGISTRAR vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Court
Karnataka High Court
Decided on
17-02-2026

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

®
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

WRIT APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2025 (S-RES)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2025 (S-RES),

WRIT APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2025 (S-RES)



IN WA NO.15/2025

BETWEEN:

1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDINGS
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001






Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O AND M DIVISION
BESCOM
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
KA AND SHA DIVISION OFFICE
BESCOM, KOLAR-563101

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
T L AND S S DIVISION
KOLAR/CHINTAMANI/DODDABALLAPURA
KOLAR-563101

5. DEPUTY CONTROL OF ACCOUNTS
O AND M CIRCLE
BESCOM, KOLAR-563101

6. SRI RAVINDRA REDDY V
S/O SRI VENKATREDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
MECHANIC-GRADE 2, BESCOM
O AND M-1
CHIKKABALLAPURA URBAN DIVISION
R/AT NARAYANACHARYA BUILDING
PRASHANTH NAGAR, WARD NO.4
BEHIND SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560009
(IMPLEADED V/O DT. 18.02.2025)
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
SRI M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-7)

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR



THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.22476/2021 AND ETC.


IN WA NO.19/2025

BETWEEN:

1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDINGS
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001

2. THE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001

3. MR. IBRAHIM N
SON OF MR BUDEN SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (E)
O AND M, CITY SUB DIVISION
MESCOM, SAGAR

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560009
(IMPLEADED V/O DT. 18.02.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.16791/2023 AND ETC.


IN WA NO.266/2025

BETWEEN:

1. DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560001

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
O AND M DIVISION
BESCOM
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101

3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
KA AND SHA DIVISION OFFICE
BESCOM, KOLAR -563101

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
T L AND S S DIVISION
KOLAR/CHINTAMANI/DODDABALLAPURA

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


KOLAR-563101
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR

5. DEPUTY CONTROL OF ACCOUNTS
O AND M CIRCLE
BESCOM, KOLAR 563101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001

2. SRI RAVINDRA REDDY V
S/O SRI VENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
MECHANIC GRADE -2
BESCOM, O & M-1
CHIKKABALLAPURA URBAN DIVISION
R/AT NARAYANACHARA BUILDING
PRASHANTH NAGAR, WARD NO.4
BEHIND SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED IN W.P.
NO.22476/2021 AND ETC.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)


1. These writ appeals have been filed impugning the
common judgment and order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16791/2023 c/w
W.P.No.22476/2021.
2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed challenging the
Entrustment Orders dated 16.05.2023 and 13.03.2017 passed
by the State Government, thereby entrusting the disciplinary
enquiries under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the KCS (CC&A) Rules') to the Upalokayukta.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The background for filing the writ petition is that the
respondent No.6, while working as a Mechanic Grade-II in
BESCOM, O&M-1, Chikkaballapura Urban Division, was
implicated in a corruption case based on a complaint alleging

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


demand of illegal gratification. An FIR came to be registered
against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He
was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.05.2015,
however, later on, he was reinstated on 20.01.2016. During
this period, his juniors were promoted.
4. After investigation, the Lokayukta police filed a charge
sheet on 25.02.2016. The Upalokayukta submitted a report
dated 14.11.2016 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lokayukta
Act') recommending that disciplinary enquiry be entrusted to
the Lokayukta under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules.

5. After considering the report submitted under Section
12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, the respondent No.1 passed the
Entrustment Order dated 13.03.2017 under Regulation
14(A)(1)a(i) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees
(Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations,
1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KEB Regulations') which
are pari materia to Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. After the
entrustment order was issued entrusting the disciplinary
enquiry to the Lokayukta, the Additional Registrar (Enquiries)

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


of the Lokayukta was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report
dated 20.10.2023 holding the charges proved against the
respondent No.6.

6. The respondent No.6 filed the aforesaid writ petition
challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A) of the
KEB Regulations.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER:

7. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and
order dated 16.10.2024, has allowed the writ petition and
declared Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations as ulta vires,
unconstitutional and struck down the same. Consequently, the
order entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta, the enquiry
report and the recommendations of the Lokayuktha to impose
compulsory retirement of the respondent No.6 have been
quashed.


8. The gravamen of the impugned judgment is perceived
"inevitable bias" and the learned Single Judge has devoted
paragraphs 140 to 160 in this respect. The learned Single

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


Judge has considered the concept of "inevitable bias" and
arrived at a conclusion that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB
Regulations results in "real likelihood of bias" from the
perspective of the person affected by the action. It is further
submitted that the learned Single Judge has arrived at a
conclusion in paragraph 152 that at the stage of consideration
of the comments of the public servant as contemplated under
Section 9(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act,
there is adjudication about the veracity of the allegation.
However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that
it is an additional layer of protection available to the public
servant and such a process of calling for comments from the
public servant and considering the same to hold that the case is
prima facie substantiated before recommending further course
of action has already been upheld by this Court in the case of
N. GUNDAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1990 KAR
223) and STATE OF KARNATAKA vs N. GUNDAPPA (ILR
1990 KAR 4188 [DB]) . In sum and substance, the learned
Single Judge has been of the view that there would be an
inevitable bias against the employee whose case is entrusted
for holding the domestic enquiry by the Lokayukta under Rule

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules inasmuch as the Lokayukta
investigates the allegation, forms an opinion in the report under
Section 12(3) that prima facie the misconduct is made out and
thereafter, recommends initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against such employee. If the entrustment is made for holding
the disciplinary enquiry by the Lokayukta, there would be
inherent bias to uphold the report submitted under Section
12(3) of the Lokayukta Act. Once the Lokayukta forms an
opinion recommending disciplinary action, it cannot thereafter
function as an impartial enquiry authority and this creates a
structural defect in holding the enquiry, which is in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. The second ground which has been taken by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment is that the Lokayukta
performs dual functions first, as a prosecutor in criminal case in
respect of the employee and second, as an Enquiry Officer to
hold the departmental enquiry. It performs functions as an
Investigating Authority, Recommending Authority and Inquiry
Authority and even if different wings are involved, their
institutional identity remains the same and this overlap of

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


functions of the Lokayukta is against the fairness and there
would be inherent bias against the employee.

10. The learned Single Judge has also held that under the
provisions of the Lokayukta Act, the role of the Lokayukta is
recommendatory one. However, under Rule 14A of the KCS
(CC&A) Rules, the Lokayukta exercises the powers of
Disciplinary Authority during the enquiry, conducts adjudicatory
proceedings and influences the final punishment. Therefore, the
entrustment made under Rule 14A goes beyond the statutory
framework of the Lokayukta and there is conflict of interest
within the Lokayukta structure itself.

11. The learned Single Judge has further held that different
wings of Lokayukta would not operate independently for
investigation, formation of opinion and conducting the
departmental enquiry thereafter. This creates a reasonable
apprehension of bias. The constitutional test is not the proof of
actual bias, but likelihood of bias. In the present case, there is
likelihood of bias which would violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of India inasmuch as Rule 14A permits the same
authority to assume the roles of complainant, investigator and

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


adjudicator. This offends the principle that justice must not only
be done, but must seem to be done. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge held that Rule 14A under which the entrustment
order is made in favour of the Lokayukta for conducting the
departmental inquiry after having investigated the case and
recommend for action, is unconstitutional.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

12. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIVANAND
B. MAGADUM (supra) , wherein it has been held that where
the investigation is conducted by the Lokayukta, entrustment of
enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules is proper. The
learned Single Judge ought not to have disregarded the binding
precedent while deciding the issue. The finding on "inevitable
bias" was reached without there being specific pleadings or any
arguments having been advanced. There were no foundational
pleadings of "real likelihood of bias". It is further submitted
that calling for comments under Section 9(3) and Section 12(3)
of the Lokayukta Act is an additional safeguard to the public
servant as recognized in the case of N. GUNDAPPA (supra) .

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


There is no adjudication while submitting the report under
Section 9(3) and Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act. Calling
for the comments of the public servant is a protective
mechanism and not adjudication as held by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment. The Enquiry Officers in the
institution of Lokayukta are all Judicial Officers deputed under
Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the KL C&R Rules'), suggesting that the Enquiry
Officers would be biased to uphold the report submitted under
Section 12(3) and would not act independently, unfairly casts a
doubt on their integrity and functional ability to enquire the
allegations in the domestic enquiry against a delinquent public
servant.

13. It is further submitted that there are two separate wings
under the institution of Lokayukta i.e., (i) Police Wing and
(ii) Enquiry Wing. The observation made by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment that both the wings act in
tandem is contrary to the settled law in the case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA, BY CHIEF SECRETARY, BANGALORE vs

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


BASAVARAJ GUDDAPPA MALIGER (ILR 2003 KAR 3589) .
In the said case, the functional separation of two wings within
the Lokayukta has been recognised. There is no empirical basis
to come to the conclusion that there is a 'manifest arbitrariness'
in conducting the domestic enquiry after the entrustment under
Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. The said finding of manifest
arbitrariness is based on hypothetical assumptions rather than
evidence. There cannot be any bias of the institution against an
individual. The institutional functioning over four decades has
been disrupted by the impugned judgment without there being
any such material or empirical data.

14. It is further submitted that the institution of Lokayukta
has been established to deal with corruption by the public
servants and any interpretation must strengthen the anti-
corruption law. The learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of SWATANTAR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS ([1997] 4 SCC 14) and DR. SUBRAMANIAN
SWAMY vs DR. MANMOHAN SINGH & ANOTHER ([2012] 3
SCC 64) , wherein it has been held that anti-corruption laws

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


must be interpreted to strengthen the fight against corruption.
The impugned judgment would weaken the statutory anti-
corruption mechanism in the State.

15. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has
failed to note and in fact has overlooked the distinction
between 'investigation' and 'enquiry'. The preliminary
investigation to submit a report under Section 12(3) to the
State Government is materially distinct from full disciplinary
enquiry involving framing of charge, evidence, cross-
examination and adjudication. The learned Single Judge has
conflated the two stages.

16. There is no question of double jeopardy attracted in the
case, as provided under Article 20(2). The public servant is not
punished twice for the same offence. The departmental
proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecution. The learned
Single Judge has erred in equating the two, contrary to the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF
INDIA vs PURUSHOTTAM ([2015] 3 SCC 779) . There is no
question of prejudging the guilt or any conflict of interest as
held by the learned Single Judge. The enquiries under Sections

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


7, 9(3) and 12(3) do not amount to prejudging the issue.
Receiving of complaint, calling for the comments and
recommending enquiry do not constitute adjudication of guilt of
the public servant. The observation of the learned Single Judge
that it amounts to judging one's own cause is absolutely
incorrect and legally unsustainable. The Enquiry Officer is an
independent authority and the presumption of the learned
Single Judge that the Enquiry Officers cannot take independent
view casts serious aspersions on the functioning, integrity and
the competence of the Enquiry Officers, who are the Judicial
Officers. The learned Single Judge has ignored the statutory
safeguards which are inbuilt in the Act itself. The enquiry and
the report under Section 12 are only recommendatory. The
final decision rests with the disciplinary authority. It is for the
disciplinary authority to entrust the domestic enquiry to the
Lokayukta and even after the enquiry is completed after
entrustment, it is for the disciplinary authority to accept or not
to accept the report.

17. The assumption of the learned Single Judge that the
institution of Lokayukta acts as a prosecutor and enquirer is

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


absolutely incorrect. There is no statutory bar preventing the
investigation and subsequent enquiry by the same institution
especially when there are different wings involved. Such
presumption drawn by the learned Single Judge is palpably
wrong. The institution of Lokayukta acts as an independent
institution against corruption and strengthening of institution of
Lokayukta is the need of the hour. The observation of the
learned Single Judge that acquittal in a criminal case would
lead to vengeful departmental action is completely unfounded.
The recommendation of punishment does not establish bias.
Proviso to Rule 8(viii) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules contemplates
major penalty in corruption cases.

18. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the
Lokayukta would not have the locus standi in defending the
provisions is in contradiction with the several decisions of the
Division Benches recognizing its right to challenge the orders
affecting its statutory powers.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States in WITHROW vs LARKIN (APPEAL NO.173/1573) ,

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


wherein it is held that mere combination of investigative and
adjudicatory functions would not by itself violate the principles
of fairness or due process. Only special facts demonstrating
intolerable risk of unfairness justify interference. The relevant
paragraph reads as under:

"That the combination of investigative
and adjudicative functions does not,
without more, constitute a due process
violation, does not, of course, preclude a
court from determining, from the special
facts and circumstances present in the
case before it, that the risk of unfairness
is intolerably high.”

20. In the present case, no such special facts exist. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 6:

21. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 6
(petitioners before the writ Court) have supported the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge. It is submitted that the judgment is legally sound,
constitutionally valid and does not warrant an interference by
this Court. It is further submitted that the departmental

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


enquiry had already been entrusted on 01.07.2015 to a retired
District Judge. When such entrustment was in progress, there
was neither any legal necessity nor compulsion for the
department to subsequently refer the matter to the Lokayukta
on 13.03.2017. The subsequent reference was arbitrary and
contrary to the governing Rules.

22. It is further submitted that under Section 12(3) of the
Lokayukta Act, once the Lokayukta/Uplokayukta records a
finding that the allegations are substantiated (wholly or partly),
a report is sent recommending departmental enquiry. This
would mean that the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta has already
reached a conclusion regarding substantiation of the allegation.
The Enquiry Officer, being subordinate and acting under
delegation, cannot reasonably be expected to depart from that
conclusion. This creates an "inevitable bias" and a clear
apprehension of a "real likelihood of bias". It is further
submitted that the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt
with this aspect and correctly concluded that the process
violates the principle that justice not only be done, but must
also seem to be done.

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR



23. It is further submitted that in fact, there is an institutional
and structural bias under Section 15 of the Lokayukta Act. The
officers are appointed in consultation with the Lokayukta and
they function under administrative and disciplinary control of
the Lokayukta. The enquiry reports are subject to scrutiny,
acceptance or rejection by the Lokayukta. The entire structure
is under one authority, creating institutional bias. The same
authority supervises the investigation through its Police Wing,
oversees the departmental enquiry through its Enquiry Wing,
recommends punishment and challenges acquittal in appellate
proceedings. There is complete concentration of functions and
powers which would amount to "judging its own cause".

24. It is further submitted that under Regulation 14(A) of the
KEB Regulations, the Board may direct enquiry through the
Lokayukta or direct the disciplinary authority to proceed under
Regulation 12. The department had already exercised its
discretion by appointing a retired District Judge. There was no
statutory compulsion to shift the enquiry to the Lokayukta and
therefore, the writ Court was justified in holding Rule 14A of

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


the KCS (CC&A) Rules unconstitutional in its application in the
present case.

25. In several cases, enquiries were entrusted to retired
District Judges; in others, to the Lokayukta. No rational basis or
criteria has been shown for such differential treatment. This
selective entrustment of departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

26. It is further submitted that under Article 20(2), a person
cannot suffer the punishment twice for the same offence. Here,
the criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act
and the departmental enquiry are on the same set of facts,
witnesses and materials. It would amount to double jeopardy.
The petitioner/respondent No.6 herein has already been
acquitted in Special Case No.5/2016. The Lokayukta has also
filed Criminal Appeal No.1028/2019 challenging the acquittal.
Thus, it is evident that the same authority investigates,
conducts departmental enquiry and challenges acquittal. It
clearly demonstrates overlapping control, and reinforcing
institutional bias.

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


27. The enquiry report forwarded by the Upalokayukta
contains not merely findings, but also recommendations
regarding punishment. Such recommendation inevitably
prejudices and influences the disciplinary authority,
compromising independent decision making by the disciplinary
authority.

28. The Lokayukta would not have the locus to insist that all
the departmental enquiries be conducted by it. The filing of the
present writ appeal would suggest an attempt to secure
compulsory role in departmental enquiries, which is neither
contemplated in the service jurisprudence nor supported by
constitutional principles. The Government has not challenged
the order in W.P.No.16791/2023. It is, therefore, submitted
that given the structural, procedural and perceptual bias
demonstrated, interference with the well-reasoned judgment of
the learned Single Judge is unwarranted and the writ appeal
may be dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
29. The learned Additional Government Advocate has
submitted that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


common judgment and order dated 16.10.2024, has set aside
the entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to the Upalokayukta and
quashed the enquiry report recommending compulsory
retirement and struck down Regulation 14(A) of the KEB
Regulations as unconstitutional. Regulation 14(A) of the KEB
Regulations is pari materia with Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A)
Rules applicable to the Government servants. Striking it down
would have wide ramifications on disciplinary framework of
various Boards, Corporations and public bodies in the State.
The only substantial ground urged in the writ petition was the
alleged "pick and choose" discretion in entrusting the enquiry
under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. The said contention
has already been answered by this Court in the case of
SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra) , which upheld the
entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A)
Rules to the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta.

30. There were no specific constitutional pleadings
demonstrating violation of fundamental rights. In absence of
the pleadings, a statutory provision cannot be struck down. In
support of the said submission, the learned Additional

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


Government Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment in
the case of HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN V UNION OF INDIA
([2023]11 SCC 432) , which reiterates the presumption of
constitutionality and necessity of specific grounds.

31. It is settled law that criminal prosecution and disciplinary
proceedings may proceed simultaneously. The Supreme Court
in the cases of STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs B.K. MEENA
([1996] 6 SCC 417) AND CAPT. M. PAUL ANTHONY vs
BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., ([1999] 3 SCC 679) has held
that both proceedings are distinct in object, standard of proof
and consequences and therefore, the question of double
jeopardy is absolutely out of place.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
32. The Lokayukta police investigated against the respondent
No.6/Sri Ravindra Reddy .V, Mechanical Grade-II, BESCOM,
Chikkaballapura, based on the complaint of demand and
acceptance of bribe for regularising an electricity connection to
a borewell. It is alleged that the respondent No.6 demanded
and received the bribe amount. A recorded telephonic
conversation allegedly evidences the demand. During the trap

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


proceedings on 06.05.2015, Rs.10,000/- was recovered from
an associate of the respondent No.6. The FIR was registered
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was
arrested and reportedly failed to give satisfactory explanation
for the amount recovered from his Associate.

33. Based on the statements, recorded conversation, seizure
mahazar and other material, the Investigating Officer found
prima facie misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the
Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Accordingly,
under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, recommendation was
made to the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental
proceedings and entrust enquiry under Rule 14A of the KCS
(CC&A) Rules.

34. The Lokayukta is an institution. There are separate
Enquiry Wing and Police Wing of the Lokayukta as provided for
in the schedule to the KL C&R Rules. These wings act only
under the administrative and supervisory control of the
Lokayukta. However, there is no interference of the Lokayukta
in the process of enquiry and investigation conducted by the

- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


Investigating Officers working in the Police Wing of the
Karnatakak Lokayukta. The learned Single Judge has
considered the concept of "inevitable bias" and has arrived at a
conclusion that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations results
in "real likelihood of bias" from the perspective of the person
affected by such action. The distinction sought to be drawn by
the learned Single Judge in relation to the concept of bias such
as the one made in Part V at paragraph 144 of the impugned
order about the "real likelihood of bias" was not even pleaded
in the writ petition. The allegation regarding the "pick and
choose" method in entrustment of the enquiry has been dealt
with by this Court in SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM (supra) .
Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the said judgment, which are relevant for
the purpose, are extracted hereunder:

"9. If the contention is further examined,
it appears that earlier in case of the
investigation made by the Karnataka
State Vigilance Commission, the inquiry
was to be entrusted to the Vigilance
Commission but if the action was to be
taken in accordance with Rule 12, which
is for minor penalty, such enquiry was to
be held by appropriate disciplinary
authority. Further, if the provisions of
present Rule 14-A (2) (a) (iii) of the CCA
Rules, prevailing now is considered in
the context to and in comparison with

- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


Rule 14-A (1)(a)(iii) prevailing then, it
appears that in place of “Vigilance
Commission or the Karnataka State
Vigilance Commission”, “Lokayukta or
the Upa Lokayukta” is substituted. It
may also be recorded that during the
course of hearing, we had called upon
the Learned AGA to show the material
for object and reasons for substitution of
Rule 14-A w.e.f. 07.05.1986 and from
such material, it has transpired that
since the State Vigilance Commission
was abolished and the Lokayukta was
constituted by Karnataka Lokayukta Act,
1984, the amendment was suggested
and new Rule 14-A has been substituted.

10. It further appears to us that the
language under Rule 14-A (2) (a) (iii) of
the CCA Rules, though uses the word
“may” but further uses the word “either”
to direct an inquiry into the case by
Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta or to direct
the appropriate authority to take action
in accordance with Rule 12. Be it
recorded that in case of major penalty,
the inquiry is contemplated as per Rule
11 of CCA Rules. Whereas if it is for
minor penalty, the inquiry and the action
would be under Rule 12 of the CCA
Rules. Therefore, in case of major
penalty or holding of inquiry under Rule
11 oftheCCARules,if the investigation is
made by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta or
Inspector General of Police of Lokayukta
and the report of investigation with the
recommendation is forwarded to the
Government, it would be required for the
Government to direct entrustment of the
inquiry to Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta,
in case of major penalty (for holding

- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


enquiry as per Rule 11 of the CCA Rules)
or to direct appropriate disciplinary
authority for minor penalty (in
accordance with Rule 12 of CCA Rules).

11. In the present case, inquiry is
initiated under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules.
Further it has come on record that the
investigation was made by Lokayukta
under the Lokayukta Act, and the report
and the recommendations are forwarded
to the Government. The Government has
also found that it is a case for initiation
of inquiry for major penalty and
therefore inquiry is ordered under Rule
11 of the CCA Rules. But such inquiry
was required to be entrusted as per the
observations made hereinabove to
Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case
may be and not to any disciplinary
authority or any so- called high power
committee. The decision on the part of
the Government for getting the inquiry
undertaken under Rule 11 of the CCA
Rules, in a case where the investigation
is made by Lokayukta and report has
been forwarded by the Lokayukta to the
Government, could be said as in
contravention to Rule 14-A (2)(a)(iii) of
the CCA Rules and hence the initiation of
the inquiry including the charge memos
forwarded, both can be said to be
without any authority in law by the so-
called high power committee."


35. Thus, it has been held that in case of major penalty or to
hold enquiry under Rule 11 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, if the
investigation is made by the Lokayuktha or Upalokayukta, as

- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


the case may be, it would be required for the Government to
make entrustment of the domestic enquiry to the Lokayukta or
Upalokayukta. The learned Single Judge ought not to have
differed with the judgment of the Larger Bench. The learned
Single Judge simply brushed aside the said judgment of the
Division Bench on the ground that the validity of Rule 14A of
the KCS (CC&A) Rules was not under challenge, which is pari
materia to Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations.

36. We are also of the considered view that the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 152 that at
the stage of consideration of the comments of the public
servant as contemplated under Section 9(3) read with Section
12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, there is an adjudication about the
veracity of the allegations, is incorrect. There is an additional
layer of protection available to the public servant and such a
process of calling the comments from the public servant and
considering the same to hold that the case is prima facie
substantiated before recommending further course of action
has been approved by this Court in N. GUNDAPPA vs STATE
OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1990 KAR 223) and STATE OF

- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


KARNATAKA vs N. GUNDAPPA (ILR 1990 KAR 4188
[DB]) .

37. Mere apprehension of bias cannot be a ground to strike
down a statutory provision. There must exist a real danger of
bias. If the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the institution of
Lokayukta is fair, the apprehension of bias cannot be a ground
for interference. There must exist a real danger of bias. As we
have said that there is an additional layer of protection
available to the public servant and the criminal investigation
wing which is headed by a Senior Police Officer and the
domestic enquiry is conducted by another wing by an enquiry
officer, who is a Judicial Officer, are separate, there is no real
danger of bias as held by the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge has held that institutional bias in entrusting the
enquiry under Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations to the
Lokayukta on the ground of presumption that the institute of
Lokayukta would try to uphold the findings recorded in the
preliminary enquiry report submitted under Section 12(3) of
the Lokayukta Act. Such a finding alleging institutional bias

- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


against public servant is unfounded and based on mere
apprehension.

38. The Supreme Court, in LALIT KUMAR MODI VS BOARD
OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND OTHERS
([2011] 10 SCC 106) , has held that mere apprehension of
bias is not sufficient. There has to be real danger of bias. We
are of the view that there does not exist any real danger of
bias. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:-
"41. As we have noted, the petitioner
has, in clear terms stated that he was
not making any personal allegations
against two members of the
Disciplinary Committee viz. Shri Jaitely
and Shri Scindia. Even the grievance
against the third member Shri Amin
cannot be said to be well founded. The
petitioner was alleging institutional bias
against the members of the
Committee, which was only on the
basis of their participation in the
meetings of the first respondent
society. In this way, institutional bias
can be alleged against every member
of the Governing Council of IPL and the
General Body of the first respondent
which cannot be accepted. The
petitioner may have an apprehension,
but it is not possible to say from the
material on record that he was facing a
real danger of bias. We cannot

- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


presume that the three-member
Committee will not afford the petitioner
a fair hearing, or that it will not render
unbiased findings. Taking a view as
canvassed by the petitioner will lead to
a demand for interference in the
enquiries conducted by all other
societies in such situations, and that
cannot be approved in view of the law
already laid down by this Court. This is
apart from the view that we have
taken, that the Committee is validly
constituted under Rule 1(q) in view of
the necessity arising due to the recusal
of the President of BCCI from the
Committee."

39. The learned Single Judge predetermined that the Judicial
Officer would be following the dicta of Lokayukta or
Upalokayukta as per the perspective of the public servant,
without the public servant providing pleadings of such a case.
The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the
process of conducting the enquiry through statutory mechanism
provided as per the Lokayukta Act, KCS (CC&A) Rules and the
KL C&R Rules result in manifest arbitrariness and thereby,
offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India, does not have the
foundation for reaching such a conclusion.

- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


40. The Supreme Court, in the case of SWATANTAR SINGH
vs STATE OF HARYANA ([1997] 4 SCC 14) , has commented
on corruption. It would be apt to take note of paragraph 6 of
the said judgment regarding the malaise of corruption
prevailing in the administration. Similarly, in the case of
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs MANMOHAN SINGH AND
ANOTHER ([2012] 3 SCC 64) , the Supreme Court in
paragraph 68 has observed as under:-

"68. Today, corruption in our country
not only poses a grave danger to the
concept of constitutional governance, it
also threatens the very foundation of
the Indian democracy and the Rule of
Law. The magnitude of corruption in
our public life is incompatible with the
concept of a socialist secular
democratic republic. It cannot be
disputed that where corruption begins
all rights end. Corruption devalues
human rights, chokes development and
undermines justice, liberty, equality,
fraternity which are the core values in
our Preambular vision. Therefore, the
duty of the court is that any anti-
corruption law has to be interpreted
and worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen the fight against corruption.
That is to say in a situation where two
constructions are eminently
reasonable, the court has to accept the
one that seeks to eradicate corruption

- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


to the one which seeks to perpetuate
it."


41. The finding of the learned Single Judge that conducting
the enquiry pursuant to Regulation 14(A) of the KEB
Regulations would offend Article 20(2) of the Constitution of
India and thereby declaring Regulation 14(A) of the KEB
Regulations as unconstitutional, is wholly erroneous.

42. Article 20(2) would apply where a person is punished
twice for the same offence. Here, there is no question of
punishing the delinquent officer twice for the same offence.
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are different
and distinct and therefore, such a finding is wholly erroneous
and does not have any basis.

43. Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules is pari materia to
Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations. As stated earlier that
Rule 14A of KCS (CC&A) Rules has been upheld by this Court in
Division Bench judgment in the case of SHIVANAND B.
MAGADUM (supra) case and the learned Single Judge ought
not to have brushed aside the Division Bench judgment to hold
that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations is ultra vires of

- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR


Articles 14 and 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The
observation of the learned Single Judge that the Lokayukta and
Upalokayukta should not play the dual role of prosecutor as
well as enquirer, is also the result of incorrect reading of the
provisions of the Lokayukta Act. This conclusion of the learned
Single Judge is based on the finding that Lokayukta and
Upalokayukta will conduct themselves in a manner prejudicial
to the public interest. There is no question of Lokayukta and
Upalokayukta judging their own cause as observed by the
learned Single Judge. Lokayukta and Upalokayukta are the
retired Judges of the High Court.

44. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also finding that
the impugned judgment is against the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment is unsustainable.

45. Accordingly, W.A.No.15/2025 is allowed. Consequently,
W.A.No.19/2025 and W.A.No.266/2025 are also allowed since
similar set of facts and question of law are involved in the said
appeals. The impugned common judgment and order dated
16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.

- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9654-DB
WA No. 15 of 2025
C/W WA No. 19 of 2025
WA No. 266 of 2025

HC-KAR



In view of disposal of the writ appeals, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they
stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE




BKV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2