5. The aforesaid provision has not been brought into the Rules, 1991 even to this day. Thus, prima facie from the entrustment of disciplinary proceedings to the office of the Upalokayukta till imposition of penalty is without authority of law. That apart, when the petitioner is governed by Rules, 1991, second respondent has invoked Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957(for short, Rules, 1957), which has no application to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is an employee of the second respondent and he is governed by Rules, 1991. Under Rules, 1991 imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is sub-rule (viii) of Rule 7-Nature of Penalties (Compulsory retirement). Therefore, there is a total non-application of mind by the second respondent from the stage of entrustment of enquiry to the office of the Upalokayukta under Rule 14(A) of Rules 1957. Therefore, question of entrusting disciplinary enquiry to the office of Upalokayukta is without authority of law since petitioner is governed by Rules, 1991 and not Rules, 1957. In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexure-J dated 22.10.2016 issued by the second respondentDr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation is set aside, writ petition stands allowed.”
