Back
Delivers to DRI Officer, Slams Lokpal for Probe Without Reasons
In a significant ruling on in anti-corruption probes, the has quashed the 's order directing a investigation against Shri Shashi Shekhar Prasad, a Senior Intelligence Officer with the . A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar set aside the , order insofar as it relates to the petitioner , emphasizing that the Lokpal cannot override a preliminary inquiry's exoneration without recording clear reasons.
This decision underscores the safeguards under the , protecting public servants from mechanical investigations based on delayed complaints.
From Smuggling Probes to Retaliatory Allegations
The saga began with Respondent No. 5, accused of masterminding a massive smuggling syndicate involving over 20 dummy firms. DRI's Delhi Zonal Unit, including petitioner Prasad, issued multiple proposing confiscation of goods and demands worth hundreds of crores.
In retaliation, Respondent No. 5 filed Complaint No. 196/2024 before the Lokpal on , alleging corruption, bribery, and misconduct against Prasad and officials from 2019— a five-year delay. The Lokpal ordered a preliminary inquiry under on .
The 's , report exonerated Prasad, finding no material against him, though it flagged Kolkata RPSs. The concurred, and the Finance Minister accepted these findings. Yet, on , the Lokpal issued under to all, including Prasad, leading to the probe order.
Petitioner's Shield: and Procedural Lapses
Prasad's counsel, led by , argued the inquiry fully cleared him, with DGoV and ministerial backing. They stressed the Lokpal failed to pinpoint any material, infirmities, or against him in its orders or notice. The 2024 complaint was dismissed as vengeful, post , with no explanation for the five-year delay.
Supporting this, for DRI highlighted the absence of supportive evidence to contradict the preliminary findings.
Lokpal's Counter: Discretion Over Reports
Lokpal's counsel asserted
grants wide discretion to order probes, departmental action, or closure, unbound by
reports. They claimed independent satisfaction based on
"counter allegations supported with verifiable facts."
Respondent No. 5 echoed this, defending the complaint's merits.
and appeared but aligned variably, with represented separately.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: Reasons or Nothing
The bench meticulously unpacked Section 20's "structured" framework: preliminary inquiry (S.20(1)), competent authority comments (S.20(2)), then reasoned (S.20(3)). Ignoring 's , DGoV concurrence, and ministerial approval without reasons rendered the orders perverse.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the court invoked for mandatory reasons in to ensure fairness and credibility. barred post-hoc justifications, demanding orders stand on their own language. reinforced reasons to curb arbitrariness and aid judicial review.
The May 21 order and
notice discussed only Kolkata RPSs, mechanically roping in Prasad. The final order vaguely cited "verifiable facts" without specifics, failing statutory mandates.
"Mere allegation or suspicion cannot lead... to a finding of
,"
the bench ruled.
Key Observations from the Bench
“Once these materials favoured the petitioner, the statute required the Lokpal to record reasons explaining why, notwithstanding such , a still existed.”
“Issuing notices mechanically, without any discussion as to the role of the person proceeded against, undermines the very integrity of the statutory mechanism.”
“Merely because power is vested in Lokpal to hold investigation under , it does not mean that the same can be exercised in a whimsical or arbitrary manner. There should exist sufficient material duly considered in the order to support such exercise of power.”
“This is not a procedural formality but a mandatory requirement. The Lokpal must show that this satisfaction is based upon some material and after due application of mind.”
Victory for Prasad, Precedent for Probes
The writ petition succeeded:
"The
Order dated
... is hereby quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner."
The ruling clarifies the Lokpal order of May 21, notice of
, and probe directive only as to Prasad, leaving Kolkata RPSs untouched.
This sets a high bar for anti-corruption bodies: probes post-
demand explicit reasoning, curbing harassment via delayed, allegation-driven complaints. Public servants gain stronger procedural armor, while ensuring accountability isn't whimsy. As news reports note, it's a
"key win for
"
in vigilance matters.
