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

The respondents (delinquent employees) were implicated in corruption cases involving demands for illegal gratification.

Following investigations by the Lokayukta police and reports submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the State Government/KPTCL entrusted disciplinary enquiries to the Lokayukta under Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1987.

The employees challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A)—which is pari materia with Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules—alleging "inevitable bias" and "real likelihood of bias" because the Lokayukta acts as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator.

A learned Single Judge struck down Regulation 14(A) as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The Lokayukta and the Corporation appealed this judgment.

Whether Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations (and by extension Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules) is unconstitutional on the grounds of "inevitable/institutional bias" or "manifest arbitrariness".

Whether the entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta after it has conducted a preliminary investigation violates the principle of Nemo judex in causa sua or Article 20(2) (Double Jeopardy) of the Constitution.

Whether the learned Single Judge was bound by the Division Bench precedent in Shivanand B. Magadum regarding the propriety of Rule 14A entrustments.

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

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in Shivanand B. Magadum v. State of Karnataka, which held that cases investigated by the Lokayukta should be entrusted to it for enquiry.

It followed N. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1990 KAR 4188) to establish that calling for comments under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act is a protective safeguard, not an adjudication of guilt.

The "real danger of bias" test from Lalit Kumar Modi v. BCCI ([2011] 10 SCC 106) was applied to distinguish between mere apprehension and actual bias.

Finally, it applied the principle that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted to strengthen the fight against corruption, as per Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh ([2012] 3 SCC 64).

The Court held that the Single Judge erred in disregarding the binding Division Bench precedent in Shivanand B. Magadum, noting that the validity of Rule 14A had already been implicitly upheld.

The Court rejected the finding of "inevitable bias," clarifying that the Lokayukta consists of separate Police and Enquiry Wings; the latter is staffed by Judicial Officers who act independently.

The Court found that the Section 12(3) report is merely a preliminary finding to check if a prima facie case exists and does not constitute a "pre-judgment" or "adjudication".

Regarding the "dual role" argument, the Court observed that mere combination of investigative and adjudicative functions remains constitutionally permissible unless an "intolerable risk of unfairness" is proved by specific facts, which were absent here.

The Court further dismissed the Article 20(2) challenge, stating that criminal trials and departmental enquiries are distinct in purpose and standard of proof, thus never amounting to double jeopardy.

The Court held that Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations is constitutionally valid and does not suffer from institutional bias or manifest arbitrariness.

The Court concluded that the Lokayukta’s role is recommendatory, and the final decision rests with the Disciplinary Authority, thereby maintaining sufficient safeguards.

The orders quashing the entrustment, enquiry reports, and recommendations were set aside, effectively reinstating the disciplinary proceedings.