Dismissed

Sri B Lakshminarayana v. the Karnataka Lokayuktha

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025WP/11766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A librarian in a government-aided private school challenged a corruption complaint, the Lokayukta's preliminary investigation report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, and the State's order entrusting disciplinary inquiry to the Lokayukta, also seeking declaration that Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act is unconstitutional. The court upheld Section 101 and held the referral for inqu

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri B Lakshminarayana Vs the Karnataka Lokayuktha — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.11766 OF 2017 (GM-KLA)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.45138 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶11

IN WP No.11766/2017

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI B. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. BAILANJANAPPA LIBRARIAN

¶14

AGED 56 YEARS

¶15

WORKING AT BYRASHETTYHALLY NELAMANGALA TALUK

¶16

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123 RESIDING AT DOOR NO.163/1A SHILPA NILAYA, RONOJI RAO EXTENSION SUBHASH NAGAR NELAMANGALA-562 123.

¶18

…PETITIONER

¶19

(BY SRI PARTHASARATHI M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶22

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING

¶23

¶24

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶25

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶26

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶28

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶29

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NELAMANGALA TOWN NELAMANGALA.

¶30

SRI BALANJANAYASWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE BYRASHETTYHALLY GOLLAHALLY POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶31

SRI N.M. VENKATESH S/O. MARIYAPPA MAHARASTRA ROAD HADEPETE NELAMANGALA.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

¶34

SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-2 TO R-6;

¶35

SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;

¶36

R-8 SRI N.M. VENKATESH-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 READ WITH 482 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE SECTION 101 OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983

¶39

¶40

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶41

AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 13-11-2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G OF THE RESPONDENT NO.8 ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTION TAKEN THERETO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE REPORT DATED 27-9-2016 SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 12(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT, 1984 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.

¶42

IN WP NO.45138/2017

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

SRI B. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. SRI BYLANJANAPPA LIBRARIAN SRI. BYLANJANEYASWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE BYRASHETTAHALLY-GOLLAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 RESIDING AT DOOR NO.163/1A SHILPA NILAYA, ROMOJI RAO EXTENSION SUBHASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN-562 123.

¶45

...PETITIONER

¶46

(BY SRI PARTHASARATHI M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶49

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶50

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶53

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶54

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT K.G. ROAD

¶55

BENGALURU-560 009.

¶56

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NELAMANGALA TOWN NELAMANGALA-560 032.

¶57

SRI BALANJANAYASWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE BYRASHETTAHALLY-GOLLAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶58

SRI N.M. VENKATESH S/O. SRI MARIYAPPA MAHARASTRA ROAD HADEPETE

¶59

NELAMANGALA-560 032.

¶60

...RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

¶62

SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-2 TO R-6;

¶63

SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;

¶64

R-8 SRI N.M. VENKATESH-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶65

¶66

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6-9-2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-AA AND ETC.

¶67

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22-9-2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶68

¶69

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶70

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶71

CAV ORDER

¶72

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶73

These Writ Petitions have been connected together,

¶74

heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶75

In essence, both Writ Petitions assail the following:

¶76

(I) In Writ Petition No.11766/2017, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶77

a) To declare Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as unconstitutional.

¶78

b) Quash the complaint dated 13.11.2013 of 8^th Respondent and all subsequent action taken thereto by the first respondent and Report dated 27.09.2016 submitted under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 by the first respondent.

¶79

¶80

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶81

c) Quash the Order dated 30.01.2017 bearing No.ED 647 SES 2016 passed by the first respondent issued upon report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984."

¶82

(II) In Writ Petition No.45138/2017, the

¶83

petitioner has sought for the following relief:

¶84

a) To quash the order No.ED 647 SES 2016 dated 06.09.2017 passed by the second respondent vide "Annexure - AA".

¶85

Brief facts of the case:

¶86

The petitioner, Sri B.Lakshminaraya, was

¶87

appointed as Librarian-cum-Clerk at Sri Balanjaneya High

¶88

School, Byrashettihalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, by issuing appointment order dated 11.08.1991. The Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid

¶89

by the Competent Authority on 27.05.1995. The appointment of the petitioner by the Institution was approved by the State Government and thus, grant-in-aid was accorded by its order dated 08.01.2000. During the years 2003 and 2005, the petitioner requested the School

¶90

¶91

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶92

Management (7^th respondent) to grant him permission for purchase of the land; accordingly, the Management granted permission on 30.10.2003 and 30.04.2005, respectively. In the year 2013, respondent No.8 (complainant) submitted a complaint against the petitioner alleging that, on 31.01.2004, the petitioner and three others had jointly purchased 1 acre 28 guntas of land in Survey Nos.100/12, 100/13, 100/14 and 100/15 of Vajarahalli village for a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- and on 08.11.2005, the petitioner and another had jointly purchased site bearing No.109 measuring 45 x 60 feet situated at 17^th Ward, Nelamangala town, for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- without obtaining necessary permission from the Management. In the complaint, it is also alleged that, after purchasing said two properties, the petitioner

¶93

entered into an Agreement of Sale with one Sri. N.Shankaraiah and Sri. Shivaramaiah in respect of land bearing Survey Nos.100/12, 100/13, 100/14 and 100/15 of Vajarahalli village for a sum of Rs.3,82,53,800/- and the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,82,53,800/- under

¶94

¶95

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶96

the agreement. However, the petitioner has not declared

¶97

these transactions in his assets and liabilities statements submitted to his higher authorities in any tax assessment years.

¶98

Thus, the School Management issued notice to the petitioner and called for an explanation from him and later the Lokayukta conducted a preliminary investigation and submitted its report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short, 'Lokayukta Act'); accordingly, the State Government accorded permission to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) to conduct inquiry against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct.

¶99

Hence, the petitioner filed two Writ Petitions to declare Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as unconstitutional and to quash the complaint dated 13.11.2013, Lokayukta report under Section 12(3) dated 27.09.2016 and the order passed by the State Government (respondent No.1) entrusting the Lokayukta to conduct inquiry vide order dated 30.01.2017. The

¶100

¶101

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶102

petitioner also sought to quash the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure - AA. Hence, these Writ Petitions.

¶103

Submissions:

¶104

Sri M.S. Parthasarathi, the counsel for the petitioner, in both the petitions and Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Prathibha R.K., learned

¶105

AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 6, Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Respondent No.8 is served and unrepresented.

¶106

We have perused the material on record.

¶107

Learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶108

Sri M.S. Parthasarathi contended that, the petitioner was

¶109

an employee of a Private Aided Educational Institution; thus, the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, are not applicable, and as the petitioner is not a 'public servant', the complaint, the preliminary inquiry, and report

¶110

10 -

¶111

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶112

submitted by Lokayukta and the State Government according permission to the Lokayukta to conduct inquiry against the petitioner is not tenable under law. The counsel further contended that the authorities, without applying the mind and without considering the true purport of Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, passed the impugned orders, which is prima facie unconstitutional. It is a settled position of law that it is for the Management of a Private Educational Institution to take disciplinary action against its employees. On all these grounds, the counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petitions.

¶113

Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta - respondent No.1, submitted that the complaint against the petitioner was given to the office of Lokayukta. A preliminary inquiry was conducted as per Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act and the report was submitted under Section 12(3) thereof to the State Government, which is the Competent Authority. Even though Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules do not apply to the

¶114

11 -

¶115

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶116

report of Lokayukta, as per Section 12(2) of the Lokayukta Act, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner can entrust an inquiry to the Lokayukta as an inquiry authority and there is no bar in law to do so. Therefore, the State Government invoking Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to entrust the matter to Lokayukta for conducting an inquiry and submitting a report is not per se illegal. Thus, learned counsel for the Lokayukta and State Government submitted that there is no merit in both the petitions and the same may be dismissed.

¶117

We have narrated in detail the facts of both the cases. The common ground of attack in both cases is that, pursuant to the complaint made before the Lokayukta, preliminary inquiry was conducted under the provisions of Section 9 and other provisions of the Lokayukta Act and a report was submitted under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act to the State Government, which is the Competent Authority under the Lokayukta Act. The State Government entrusted the inquiry to be conducted by the Lokayukta as against the petitioner as if he is covered

¶118

12 -

¶119

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶120

within the meaning of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The other ground raised in both the petitions is that Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is

¶121

unconstitutional.

¶122

Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, grants power to the Government to impose penalties. This Section is part of a larger chapter on the control of Private Educational Institutions and comes after Sections dealing with the conduct and service conditions of employees and concludes with other control measures.

¶123

The purpose of this provision is to empower the Government to impose penalties for specific actions or inactions within the education system. Chapter XV of the Karnataka Education Act deals with the control of Private Educational Institutions, and follows Sections 87 to 100 that address various aspects of employee's service, including qualifications, appointments, pay, code of conduct, dismissal and appeals. The nature and extent of the penalties that may be imposed under this Section are further detailed in related rules and notifications issued

¶124

13 -

¶125

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶126

under the Act, such as the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. Thus, Section 101 of the Act cannot be declared as unconstitutional.

¶127

In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner contended that he is not a public servant, thus provisions of KCS (CCA) Rules is not applicable to him. Before proceeding further with the aforesaid issue raised in both the cases, it will be useful to extract the relevant legal provisions as under:

¶128

The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984:

¶129

Section 2(4):

¶130

" 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-

¶131

x x x

¶132

(4) “Competent Authority” in relation to a public servant means,-

¶133

(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion;

¶134

14 -

¶135

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶136

(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister;

¶137

(c) in the case of a Government servant other than a Secretary, the Government of Karnataka;

¶138

(d) in the case of any other public servant, such authority as may be prescribed;"

¶139

This provision deals with the assignment of matters to Lokayukta. It states that the Lokayukta can issue a general or special order to assign which matters Upa-Lokayukta can investigate. Further, any investigation or action taken by an Upa-Lokayukta is valid, regardless of the specific assignment order.

¶140

---*---

¶141

Section 2(6):

¶142

"(6) “Government Servant” means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or any person, whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service of the Central or

¶143

15 -

¶144

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶145

another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka;"

¶146

a) It includes any person who is part of the Civil

¶147

Services of Karnataka; b) anyone who holds a civil post within the State's administration; c) any person who is in service in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka; d) a person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of other entities, such as the Government of India, another State, or a local authority;

¶148

and e) a person from the Central or another State Government or a local authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka. Thus, employee in Government-aided Private Institution has some rights and benefits comparable to Government servants, such as pension and gratuity; thus, their service is often treated as "akin to a post under the State Government" for practical purposes. Therefore, they are also bound by Conduct Rules. In the instant cases, the petitioner has taken the contention

¶149

16 -

¶150

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶151

that the complainant has no jurisdiction to lodge the complaint.

¶152

15. Section 9: Provisions relating to

¶153

complaints and investigations. —

¶154

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta. Provided that in case of a grievance, if the person aggrieved is dead or for any reason, unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made or if it is already made, may be prosecuted by his legal representatives or by any other person who is authorized by him in writing in this behalf.

¶155

(2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by an affidavit and in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶156

(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit to conduct any investigation under this Act, he-

¶157

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an investigation initiated suo-motu by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section 7 to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned;

¶158

17 -

¶159

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶160

(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 7 as the case may be;

¶161

(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit.

¶162

(4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

¶163

(5) The Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if, in his opinion,-

¶164

(a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith;

¶165

(b) There are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or

¶166

(c) Other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies.

¶167

(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons there for and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned.

¶168

18 -

¶169

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶170

(7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act as against the Public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of (any other public servant) to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation."

¶171

Thus, Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, dealt with procedure of investigation after a complaint is made against a public servant. This Section allows for complaints to be filed for grievance or misconduct by public servants in Section 2(12) of the Act. Therefore, the Lokayukta submits its report under Section 12 of the Act.

¶172

---*---

¶173

Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, empowers the Karnataka Lokayukta to initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant. The provision reads as under:

¶174

"Rule 14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the Lokayukta.—

¶175

19 -

¶176

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶177

(1) The provisions of subrule

¶178

(2) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Government Servants whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on reference from Government (or where offences alleged against them punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police before 21st day of December, 1992.

¶179

x x x

¶180

Explanation: In this rule, the expressions “Lokayukta” and “Upa-lokayukta” shall respectively have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,1984 (and the expression “Karnataka Lokayukta Police” means the police wing established under Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and includes, so far as may be, the corresponding establishment under the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission Rules, 1980, and the expression “Inspector-General of Police” shall be construed accordingly."

¶181

---*---

¶182

20 -

¶183

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶184

Insofar as conducting of inquiry as against employee of Private Education Institution is concerned, under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta can conduct an inquiry against an employee of a Private Educational Institution if it is aided by the Government and if the Government refers the matter under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

¶185

This Court on many occasions held that, employees of Educational Institutions that receive Government aid are considered akin to Government employees for certain purposes. The rationale is that their salaries and service conditions are often regulated and funded by the State Government, even if the Institution is privately managed.

¶186

The KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, do not apply

¶187

automatically to employees of Private Institutions.

¶188

However, if the regulations or service rules of an Aided Private Institution incorporate or adopt the KCS (CCA)

¶189

21 -

¶190

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶191

Rules, then the Government can refer disciplinary matters to the Lokayukta.

¶192

Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules empowers the State Government to entrust a disciplinary inquiry to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta. If the Government determines that a disciplinary inquiry is warranted against an employee of an Aided Private Institution, it can use this Rule to refer the case to the Lokayukta.

¶193

In sum and substance, the complaint against the petitioner is that he failed to declare his assets and liabilities within the Management of the School in respect of concerned income tax assessment years and thereby the petitioner fails to perform his duties as public servant, which is unbecoming of a public servant under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶194

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recommendation of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act is passed without application of mind.

¶195

22 -

¶196

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶197

On going through the report under Section 12(3) of the Act and the order passed by the State Government under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules authorizing the Lokayukta to proceed with the inquiry, in our opinion, is tenable in law.

¶198

We are of the view that the authorities, while passing the orders and authorizing the Lokayukta to proceed with the inquiry, have applied their minds. The Lokayukta, while submitting its report under Section 12(3) of the Act, has discussed about the complaint against the petitioner in detail and has come to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner has not submitted his assets and liabilities statements for the particular income tax assessment years; thus, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner purchased certain lands and sites without permission of the higher authority, which is mandatory under law. Thus, there is no error in continuing with the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. All other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and which have not been answered in both the petitions, are

¶199

23 -

¶200

WP No. 11766 of 2017 C/W WP No. 45138 of 2017

¶201

permitted to be raised before the inquiry officer in

¶202

accordance with law.

¶203

Looking from any angle, we are of the view that, the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge. There is no merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the Writ

¶204

Petitions are dismissed .

¶205

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶206

Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of, as they do

¶207

not survive for consideration.

¶208

/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶209

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE