Point of Law:Corruption – Investigation - Inquiry is a formal investigation; investigation is a search. Therefore, the act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the authority to consider whether approval is sought for an enquiry, inquiry or an investigation.

ORDER :

This petition calls in question an order of approval granted as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 03.02.2021 for conduct of proceedings against the petitioners.

2. Sans unnecessary details, facts germane for consideration of the lis are as follows :-

The first petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as Assistant Director in the Department of Agriculture and has now retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The second petitioner was working as Joint Director in the Department of Agriculture.

3. One Smt. M.H.Vijayalakshmi registered complaint before the Principal Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on 09.05.2019 alleging various irregularities by the incumbents of office in the Krishi Bhagya Scheme for the period between 2016 and 2019. During the Pendency of initiation of any proceedings in terms of the complaint, the complainant files second complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau on 30.05.2019 and again third complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.06.2019, all on the same set of facts. Thus there were three complaints to three different authorities on the same set of facts, almost at the same time.

4. The Lokayukta, on the complaint holds a detailed enquiry and submits its report on 21.06.2019 opining that the allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners and the like were unsubstantiated.

5. During the pendency of proceedings either before the Anti Corruption Bureau or the Government, the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 07.09.2019 issues a general direction appointing a three Member Committee to conduct enquiry statewide into the allegations that were levelled against the petitioners and the like and to submit report. The period the committee was directed to hold an enquiry was between 2014 and 2018.

6. After the Hon’ble Chief Minister ordering enquiry statewide, complainant who had registered the complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau withdraws her complaint before it, on the ground that she has been victorious in getting a statewide enquiry being conducted on the allegations levelled by her. The communication of withdrawal of the said complaint dated 04.10.2019 was served upon Anti Corruption Bureau.

7. The three member Committee that was constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister submitted its report on 23.01.2020 holding that there was no substance in the allegations levelled thereby exonerated the petitioners and the like of the allegations. After all these aforesaid proceedings, after about 9 months of submission of report to the government by the committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Additional Director General of Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau communicates to the competent authority on 19.10.2020, seeking approval in terms of Section 17A of the Act, for commencement of proceedings which would be a prelude for setting criminal law in motion against the petitioners. This resulted in passing of the order impugned granting approval under Section 17A of the Act r/w General Circular dated 14.03.2016. It is this order of approval dated 03.02.2021 that is called in question in this writ petition.

8. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

9. The learned counsel Sri Nitin Ramesh has for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that (a) the Lokayukta after an enquiry had closed the case in favor of the petitioners, (b) the complaint registered against the petitioners had resulted in their exoneration in the statewide enquiry ordered by a separate committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister which included the period in which the petitioners were functioning in Kalaburagi District, (c) granting of approval ought to have been on consideration of the purport of the General Circular and the intent of Section 17A of the Act and (d) a bald approval without applicati