1. Challenge to Lokayukta's interim report recommending suspension and transfer of a public servant following a preliminary verification under the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 953
1998(5) Supreme 149
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Ch. Rama Rao -Petitioner
versus
Lokayukta & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10754-55 of 1996
Decided on 9-5-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
Under the A.P. Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1983, it would not be necessary to issue any notice or give opportunity to a public servant at the stage of preliminary verification or investigation.
Under the A.P. Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1983, it would not be necessary to issue any notice or give opportunity to a public servant at the stage of preliminary verification or investigation.
Subject
Administrative Law - Lokayukta
Act Referred
Headnote
A.P. Lokayukta & Uplokayukta Act, 1983-Sections 3, 7-Power of Lokayukta to conduct preliminary verification-It would not be necessary to issue any notice or give opportunity to a public servant-Lokayukta is empowered to submit interim report with recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer him pending further investigation or preliminary verification itself.
Held : When the Lokayukta or Up-lokayukta, as the case may be, conducts a regular investigation into the complaint, it would be necessary to give prior opportunity to the public servant etc. By implication, such an opportunity stands excluded when preliminary verification or investigation is conducted. The object appears to be that the preliminary investigation or verification is required to be done in confidentiality to get a prima facie evidence so that the needed evidence or material may not be got suppressed or destroyed. It is seen from the report submitted by the Lokayukta, that he has prima facie found that there are some allegations against the petitioner. We are not dealing with the nature of the allegations since the matters are yet to be investigated. Suffice is to state that the Lokayukta has power to submit a preliminary report to take further action so as to enable the Lokayukta to conduct further investigation. The power to submit final report with recommendation to take punitive or penal action includes power to submit interim report with recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer him pending further investigation or the preliminary verification itself. The object of the recommendation is only to enable smooth enquiry or the investigation conducted without being hampered with by the persons concerned or to prevent an opportunity to temper with the record or to destroy the record. Under these circumstances, we think that the Lokayukta was well justified in not issuing any notice or giving any opportunity to the petitioner at preliminary verification. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to recommend suspension or transfer and whether failure to provide an opportunity during preliminary verification violates statutory provisions. (Para 2 )
3. Preliminary verification is conducted confidentially to prevent evidence destruction; notice is required only during regular investigation, not during the preliminary stage. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. The power to submit a final report includes the power to submit interim recommendations for suspension or transfer to ensure an unhampered investigation. (Para 5 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does the Lokayukta have the power to initiate suo motu action under the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983?
Yes, under Section 7(3) of the Act, the Lokayukta is empowered to take suo motu action, provided the reasons for initiating such enquiry are recorded. (Para 3 )
7. Is a public servant entitled to a notice or opportunity to be heard during the preliminary verification stage of a Lokayukta enquiry?
No. Preliminary verification is conducted in confidentiality to prevent the suppression or destruction of evidence. An opportunity to comment is only required during a regular investigation after prima facie evidence is found. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Can the Lokayukta recommend the suspension or transfer of a public servant via an interim report before the final investigation is complete?
Yes. The power to submit a final report includes the power to submit interim recommendations for suspension or transfer to ensure a smooth investigation and prevent tampering with records. (Para 5 )
Order
This special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on 23.4.1996 in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715/96. An order was made by the Government on April 2, 1996 in GOMS No. 62 granting certain amount to the Director of Medical Education for expansion of the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two generators were to be erected in the hospital. The petitioner was required to submit the report on the estimates. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner submitted the report to the Superintendent Engineer and tenders were called for. It would appear that several people had submitted their tenders and the initial estimate was of Rs. 15 lakhs and odd for one set of the generator. Subsequently, it would appear that the estimate was increased to Rs. 21 lakhs per set. In that behalf, a anonymous complaint came to be made before the Lokayukta of A.P. constituted under Section 3 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No. II of 1983) (for short, the ‘Act’). After conducting preliminary investigation, the Lokayukta came to submit his interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the two sets and also by interim report dated April 6, 1996 directed the Government either to suspend the petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action on the Superintendent Engineer as well. The petitioner came to challenge the two orders in the above writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India. He also challenged the validity of the interim report. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding their validity. On the question of interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the interim report. Thus, the petitioner has filed these SLPs.
2. As regards the constitutionality of the above provisions, in fairness, Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had not pressed the same in these SLPs stating that the matters are pending adjudication in another appeal. But he seriously objected to the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta in submitting the report for taking action against the petitioner for suspension of him or to transfer him to any other place. According to the learned counsel, the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to take action and Up-Lokayukta came to be appointed under the Act. We find no force in the contention.
3. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 give power to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta respectively to investigate into any action concerning persons respectively mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 enables Lokayukta, notwithstanding the power conferred under Sub-section (2) thereof on the Up-Lokayukta to take suo motu action in respect of any action contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the only condition precedent required thereunder is to record reasons for initiating suo motu enquiry divesting the power of the Up-Lokayukta and taking action under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. It is next contended that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity before submitting the report to the Government and the action is contrary to Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act. We find no force in the contention.
4. The Lokayukta is empowered under the Act to conduct such preliminary verification as he deems fit or proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act to find whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie justify for conducting regular investigation. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 10 postulates that every preliminary verification referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted in private and in particular, the identity of the complainant and of the public servant affected by the said preliminary verification shall not be disclosed to the public or t
