11. The issue now is, whether the Lokayukta can challenge the decision of the Cabinet by filing a writ petition before this Court. In other words, can the Lokayukta be considered to be an aggrieved person on the decision of the Cabinet. The statutory frame work afore-extracted clearly mandates certain action to be taken once the report is submitted by the Lokayukta under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. The function of the Lokayukta rests at that stage. The next stage where the Lokayukta would again spring into action is, when an order is passed entrusting the enquiry after consideration of the report in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act. If the enquiry is not entrusted, Sub-section (5) comes into play. Sub-section (5) mandates that in the event, the Lokayukta is not satisfied with non-entrustment of enquiry or closure of proceedings, the only remedy available under the Act is to communicate the same to the Governor and it is the function of the Governor under Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Act to place such communication of the Lokayukta before each Houses of the State Legislature along with an explanatory memorandum. This being the statutory frame work, the Lokayukta can hardly be said to be a person aggrieved. No doubt, the Office of the Lokayukta is on a much higher pedestal than that of an Inquiry Officer in a Departmental Inquiry but, it would not mean that the Inquiry Officer shall be permitted to challenge the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, who alone is empowered to act upon the report of the Inquiry Officer. If the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 is declined to be accepted by the competent authority, who alone has the discretion either to entrust or not to entrust the enquiry, the Lokayukta cannot be seen to challenge the same invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
