### Regulation 14(A) Upheld: Investigative and Adjudicative Function Overlap Does Not Constitute Institutional Bias

Respondent employees of BESCOM/KPTCL 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/Disciplinary Authority issued "Entrustment Orders".

These orders transferred the disciplinary enquiries to the Upalokayukta under Regulation 14(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1987.

The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 14(A).

A Learned Single Judge struck down the Regulation as *ultra vires* and unconstitutional, quashing the entrustment orders and subsequent enquiry reports on the grounds of "inevitable institutional bias," "real likelihood of bias," and violation of Article 20(2).

The Lokayukta and KPTCL appealed this verdict.

Whether Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations (pari materia to Rule 14A of 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 "natural justice" or the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Whether the Learned Single Judge erred in disregarding the binding Division Bench precedent in *Shivanand B. Magadum*.

The Court applied Regulation 14(A) of the KEB Regulations and Rule 14A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules regarding the entrustment of enquiries to the Lokayukta.

It relied on *Shivanand B. Magadum v. State of Karnataka*, which held that if the Lokayukta conducts the investigation, the enquiry must be entrusted to it for major penalties.

It applied the "real danger of bias" test from *Lalit Kumar Modi v. BCCI*.

It applied the principle from *Withrow v. Larkin* (US Supreme Court) that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not per se violate due process.

It further referenced *Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh* regarding the purposive interpretation of anti-corruption laws.

It further referenced *State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena* regarding the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings.

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred by disregarding the binding precedent in *Shivanand B. Magadum*, which already upheld the validity of entrusting enquiries to the Lokayukta.

The Court found no "real danger of bias," noting that the Lokayukta’s internal structure maintains a functional separation between the Police Wing (investigation) and the Enquiry Wing (adjudication, headed by Judicial Officers).

The Court clarified that the preliminary report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act is not an "adjudication" but an additional safeguard for the public servant.

Regarding Article 20(2), the Court determined that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct in nature and object; therefore, holding both does not constitute double jeopardy.

Finally, the Court observed that the Single Judge’s findings of "institutional bias" were based on hypothetical apprehensions rather than empirical evidence or specific pleadings.

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

The Court reaffirmed that the Lokayukta can legally conduct disciplinary enquiries following its own investigations.

The quashed entrustment orders, enquiry reports, and recommendations were restored.