Entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to Lokayukta under Rule 14A does not constitute institutional or inevitable bias.

Respondent No. 6, a Mechanic at BESCOM, was implicated in a corruption case involving illegal gratification, leading to an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Following an investigation, the Upalokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending a disciplinary enquiry.

The State Government subsequently issued Entrustment Orders transferring the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Regulation 14(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) Regulations.

The respondent challenged this in a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge struck down Regulation 14(A) as unconstitutional, citing "inevitable bias" and "real likelihood of bias" because the Lokayukta acted as both investigator and adjudicator.

The Lokayukta and the State appealed this judgment.

The court primarily applied Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations and Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, which empower the government to entrust enquiries to the Lokayukta.

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in Shivanand B. Magadum v. State of Karnataka, which upheld the validity of such entrustment in cases of major penalties.

Regarding bias, the court applied the "real danger" test from Lalit Kumar Modi v. BCCI, distinguishing it from mere apprehension.

It further referenced Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh to emphasize that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted to strengthen, rather than weaken, the fight against corruption.

The Division Bench found the Single Judge's finding of "inevitable bias" legally unsustainable and factually unsupported by pleadings.

The court reasoned that the Lokayukta maintains a functional separation between its Police Wing (investigation) and Enquiry Wing (conducted by Judicial Officers), which mitigates structural bias.

It held that the Section 12(3) report is a preliminary finding of a prima facie case, not a final adjudication of guilt; thus, the subsequent enquiry does not constitute judging one's own cause.

The court criticized the Single Judge for disregarding the binding precedent of Shivanand B. Magadum, which already established that entrustment under Rule 14A is proper when the Lokayukta conducts the initial investigation.

Finally, the court clarified that Article 20(2) is inapplicable because departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions are distinct in nature and purpose.

It held that Regulation 14(A) is constitutionally valid and does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness or institutional bias.

The court concluded that the appointment of a Judicial Officer as an Enquiry Officer provides sufficient safeguards for a fair hearing.

The Entrustment Orders and the subsequent enquiry reports were restored.