Karnataka HC Upholds Lokayukta’s Role in Disciplinary Inquiries Against Transport Officers, Rejecting Their Challenge to the Entrustment of Enquiries

The petitioners, officers of the Karnataka Transport Department, challenged orders dated 4 April 2017 and a corrigendum dated 4 May 2017 entrusting disciplinary enquiries against them to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications on 30 August 2021, and the officers filed these writ petitions against that decision.

The High Court noted that the same or an identical entrustment had been upheld by a co-ordinate Bench on 29 June 2021; the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that judgment on 26 September 2023, while leaving the officers’ contentions open to be raised before the appropriate authority or forum.

Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, was the provision invoked for entrusting the enquiries to the Lokayukta.

The Court followed the co-ordinate Bench’s decision dated 29 June 2021, which had restored an identical entrustment order, and considered the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the resulting special leave petitions on 26 September 2023.

The Supreme Court’s order left the officers’ legal contentions open for consideration by the appropriate authority and, if an adverse order were made, by the appropriate forum; it also permitted the enquiries to proceed and be concluded expeditiously.

The Court further noted a co-ordinate Bench decision dated 21 August 2025 rejecting a challenge to an identical entrustment order.

The Court considered the present entrustment orders to arise from facts similar or identical to those addressed in the earlier proceedings.

In light of the co-ordinate Bench’s decision, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the special leave petitions with the stated liberty, and the later decision rejecting a challenge to an identical order, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioners’ applications.

The decision did not foreclose the petitioners from raising their contentions in the disciplinary process or before an appropriate forum if an adverse order were made.

The petitioners’ contentions remained open to be raised in accordance with the liberty recorded by the Supreme Court.