For Corporation employees, the Commissioner may exercise the Government’s power under Rule 14-A to entrust disciplinary enquiries.

The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector employed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“BBMP”), was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for entering the name of a complainant’s wife in the property register. Following a Lokayukta trap on 28.12.2007, Crime No. 56/2007 was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the petitioner was suspended

The Upa-Lokayukta conducted an investigation and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, recommending disciplinary action and entrustment of the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (“CCA Rules”).

The State Government forwarded the report to the BBMP Commissioner, who, by order dated 16.11.2011, entrusted the disciplinary enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta.

The petitioner was acquitted in the parallel criminal case on 09.06.2016, with the Criminal Court holding that demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved.

Nevertheless, the departmental enquiry concluded that the charge was proved, and the Upa-Lokayukta recommended compulsory retirement.

After issuing a show-cause notice and receiving the petitioner’s detailed reply, the BBMP Commissioner compulsorily retired him by order dated 31.08.2020.

The petitioner challenged the entrustment order, enquiry report, Upa-Lokayukta recommendation and punishment order.

1. Whether the BBMP Commissioner was competent to entrust the disciplinary enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, when Rule 14-A refers to the power of the “Government”?

2. Whether the entrustment order dated 16.11.2011 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings were legally sustainable in light of the proviso to Rule 2(2) of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991?

3. Whether the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal prosecution invalidated the departmental enquiry and the consequential punishment?

The Court applied Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, which permits the competent authority to entrust disciplinary proceedings to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, read harmoniously with the proviso to Rule 2(2) of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991, which governs the meaning of expressions in the CCA Rules as applied to Corporation employees.

The Court held that “Government” in Rule 14-A must be understood within this statutory framework and, for BBMP employees, includes the competent Corporation authority, namely the Commissioner.

The Court also recognised Sections 7(2) and 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 as the statutory basis for the Upa-Lokayukta’s investigation and recommendation.

It reiterated that criminal and departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields: criminal charges require proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary charges are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities; therefore, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate departmental proceedings.

The Court also relied upon the binding precedent in W.A. No. 2208/2006, which upheld the validity of similar entrustment by the BBMP Commissioner.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s jurisdictional objection because Rule 14-A could not be read in isolation from the proviso to Rule 2(2) of the 1991 Service Conditions Rules.

Since the petitioner was a BBMP employee, the expression “Government” in Rule 14-A had to be adapted in accordance with the rules governing Corporation employees; consequently, the Commissioner possessed the necessary statutory competence to entrust the enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta.

The fact that the State Government had forwarded the Upa-Lokayukta’s report to the Commissioner did not invalidate the subsequent entrustment order.

Although the criminal acquittal was a relevant circumstance requiring consideration by the disciplinary authority, it did not, by itself, nullify the departmental proceedings because the applicable standard and purposes of the two proceedings were different.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner’s challenge based on want of authority could not succeed; the remaining objections concerning the enquiry findings, consideration of the petitioner’s reply and proportionality of punishment did not establish that the initial entrustment was without jurisdiction.

The entrustment order dated 16.11.2011 was therefore not invalid merely because the Commissioner was not expressly named in Rule 14-A.

The petitioner’s reliance on the criminal acquittal did not invalidate the departmental enquiry or establish want of jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted against the entrustment order or the consequential disciplinary proceedings.