Important Point
The investigation u/s. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 entrusted by the State of Karnataka to the Police Officers of the State having the requisite rank cannot be said to be vitiated because of the fact that the said officers were on deputation to the police wing of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta at the relevant time.

Order

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-On the last day before summer vacation, namely, 14.5.1998, we dismissed these Special Leave Petitions at the stage of admission and stated that we shall pass a reasoned order later. We are passing that order now.

2. These seven special leave petitions have been preferred against the common Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 24215/97, 32653/97, 33388/97, 27056/97, 27361/97, 33852/ 97 and 4361/98. The judgment, in fact, disposed of several other writ petitions also and in addition considered the correctness of the judgment dated 12.8.1997 of a learned Single Judge of that Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 17819 of 1994 against which Writ Appeals Nos. 5081/97 and 5071/97 were respectively preferred by the petitioner therein and the State of Karnataka.

3. The point raised in these SLPs is whether the investigation under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 entrusted by the State of Karnataka to the Police Officers of the State having the requisite rank could still be said to be vitiated because of the fact that the said officers were on deputation to the police wing of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta at the relevant time?

4. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners before us filed writ petitions contending that the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta could not have been entrusted with the investiga­tion under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In writ petition 17819/94 filed earlier by another public servant which went before a learned single Judge of that Court, the same questions were raised. A learned single Judge of that court while however re­jecting the contention of the Writ Petitioner in writ petition No.17819/94 that the Police Officers sent on deputation to the Lok Ayukta to ‘assist’ the said authority under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984 would cease to be police officers for purposes of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, held that the petition was liable to be partly allowed on the basis of the following reasoning. The learned Judge held that in view of Section 15(2) of the Lok Ayukta Act which required the staff of the Lok Ayukta to act without ‘fear’ in the discharge of their functions and Section 15(4) of the said Act-which vested ‘administrative and disciplinary control’ of the staff in the Lok Ayukta,-the independence of the Lok Ayukta as an autonomus body would be affected if the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta were entrusted with functions of investigation under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that, therefore, such officers should not have been asked to conduct any such investigation. The learned Single Judge, however, sustained the investigation already made, by invoking the de facto doc­trine laid down by the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Ranga Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. Question arose as to the position of the post of Director General of Police in the Lok Ayukta created w.e.f. 21.12.1992 which post was however not included in the rules governing the Lok Ayukta and to the effect of another notification dated 22.12.92 issued by the State Government under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corrup­tion Act, 1988 designating all the Inspectors of Police. Karnataka Lok Ayukta to be police officers for purposes of the proviso to Section 17 of the said Act. The learned Judge held that the latter notification in so far as it placed the said officers under the ‘general and over­all control and supervision’ of the Director General, Bureau of Inves­tigation, Lok Ayukta, Bangalore-rather than under the Lok Ayukta-as was the position under an earlier notification dated 2.11.1992 which had vested such control and supervision in the Lok Ayukta-was bad inasmuch as it jeopardised the independence of the Lok Ayukta, par­ticularly when the post of Director General of the Bureau of Investiga­tion, Lok Ayukta was not included among th