Disciplinary entrustment is invalid when the authority ignores an accepted ‘C’ report under Section 12(4).

The respondent, then a Revenue Inspector, was accused of demanding ₹500 to enter names in revenue records.

The Lokayukta trap did not establish demand or acceptance, and the criminal court accepted the investigating officer’s “C” report and closed the summary proceedings.

The State subsequently entrusted a departmental enquiry and articles of charge were issued on the same allegations.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal set aside the entrustment order and charge articles, holding that the relevant material, including the “C” report, had not been considered.

The Karnataka Lokayukta challenged that order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the enquiry entrustment and articles of charge warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether departmental proceedings based on the same allegations could be sustained where the trap had failed and the criminal court had accepted the “C” report.

Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, read with Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was relied on by the Tribunal as requiring consideration of the relevant material before entrusting a disciplinary enquiry.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty and Chairman, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha for the principles that disciplinary action must have a lawful foundation and that consequential proceedings may fall where the initial action is unlawful.

The High Court’s stated basis for its decision was that the record disclosed no demand, acceptance, or successful trap, and it found no error in the Tribunal’s order.

The Court treated the absence of demand and acceptance, and the failure of the trap, as undisputed on the record.

Since the departmental charge arose from the same alleged demand and acceptance, the Court concluded that the charge could not stand on those facts.

It accordingly found no error in the Tribunal’s decision, which had also concluded that the entrustment was made without proper consideration of the material, including the accepted “C” report.

The Tribunal’s order setting aside the enquiry-entrustment order dated 2 November 2011 and the articles of charge dated 28 September 2012 therefore remained in force.