was appointed as the enquiry officer in the case had held an enquiry and thereafter submitted a report as provided under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On receipt of the same, the Upa-Lokayukta has forwarded the same along with his recommendation to respondent No.1 who is the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate order against the petitioner. No fault can be found in such a procedure adopted by respondent No.2. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, since the Disciplinary Authority has not yet taken any action pursuant to the recommendation forwarded by the Upa- Lokayukta, the writ petition is premature in nature. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of recommendation made by the Upa-Lokayukta, then it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law raising all the grounds urged herein. Further, we are of the view that since the petitioner is a retired Tahasildar, if he is aggrieved by the enquiry report or the recommendation made by the UpaLokayukta while forwarding the enquiry report, he is required to approach the Karnataka Administrative
