Back
High Court Of Delhi
JASPAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - Respondent
Civil 4012 of 2002
Decided On : 09/30/2002
The court examined the complaint made by the fourth respondent against the petitioner, a member of the legislative assembly, alleging that the petitioner had demanded money and his refusal to give resulted in his transfer. The court also examined the suo moto action taken by the Lokayukta, although admittedly in relation thereto, the Lokayukta could not exercise his jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the legislative assembly, was accused of demanding money from a complainant, a resident of his constituency. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had demanded money in exchange for resolving a complaint regarding electricity supply. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant was transferred after he refused to pay the bribe. The Lokayukta initiated an inquiry into the matter and submitted a report to the competent authority, recommending action against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the Lokayukta's report and the subsequent actions taken by the competent authority, arguing that the principles of natural justice were not followed and that the Lokayukta acted without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Lokayukta's report was flawed because it was based on evidence that was not properly admitted and that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court also held that the Lokayukta acted without jurisdiction in initiating a suo moto inquiry into the matter, as the alleged misconduct did not fall within the scope of the Lokayukta's authority. The court quashed the Lokayukta's report and the subsequent actions taken by the competent authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Lokayukta's report was valid, given that it was based on evidence that was not properly admitted and that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself? 2. Whether the Lokayukta acted within his jurisdiction in initiating a suo moto inquiry into the matter, considering that the alleged misconduct did not fall within the scope of the Lokayukta's authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Lokayukta's report was invalid because it was based on evidence that was not properly admitted and that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person accused of misconduct be given a fair hearing and that evidence against them be properly admitted. 2. The court held that the Lokayukta acted without jurisdiction in initiating a suo moto inquiry into the matter, as the alleged misconduct did not fall within the scope of the Lokayukta's authority. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995, and concluded that the Lokayukta's jurisdiction was limited to investigating allegations of misconduct against public functionaries, and that the alleged misconduct in this case did not fall within that category.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Lokayukta's report and the subsequent actions taken by the competent authority.
( 1 ). Recommendations of the Lokayukta dated 14th June 2002 is in question in this writ petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a member of legislative assembly.
( 3 ) ON 04. 1 1. 2001 the complainant / respondent No. 4 made a complaint to the Hon ble Chief Minister against Shri. H. R. Aggarwal, chief Engineer (D) West, DVD SE (D) W II and XEN (D) PJB stating that these officials are making transfers after taking money. On 04. 11. 2001 the complainant / respondent no. 4 made a complaint to the Hon ble Chief minister against Shri H. R. Aggarwal, Chief Engineer (D),west, DVB SE (D) W II and XEN (D) PJB stating that these officials are making transfers after taking money and as he could not satisfy the greed of the above mentioned officers, he has been transferred only after 5 months time as ae (Zone) 1203 (D) PJB. He further stated that he has been transferred 6 times in 7 years service as Assistant Engineer. He further alleged that the chairman, DVB did not give him a hearing. He prayed for action against the guilty officials.
( 4 ) ON 31. 01. 2002, the complainant filed two complaints being np. C-7/lok/2002 and C-8/lok/2002 before the learned Lokayukta, Delhi stating that the petitioner allegedly demanded money and his refusal to give resulted in his transfer. Complaint No. CV-8, also filed alleging the above mentioned officers had been indulging in corrupt practice in implementing the transfer policy. The charges leveled against him arc as follows: -
(I) corruption in effecting transfers;
(II) transfer is done under pressure from political parties;
(III) demand of money on monthly payment basis for holding an office;
(IV) non-payment of electricity charges;
(V) use of domestic light tor commercial purposes.
( 5 ) IN response to the above complaint, learned Lokayukta issued separate notices on complaints, whereupon they filed their replies denying the above charges. They further contended that the transfers are made bona fide, on account of non-availability of officials in mid-summer when the problems arc highest, at the same time to train the new incumbent and without any pressure from political background.
( 6 ) ON 15. 05. 02 the learned Lokayukta in his order enumerated the points/allegations and fixed a date for hearing on 29. 05. 2002. Between the above two dates, learned Lokayukta has been enquiring into the allegations of demand of money, exercise of political pressure and also matter relating to non-payment of electricity charges and house tax pertaining to Mata Balwant Kaur Public School, situated in Mahavir nagar started by his late father, being run by a registered society. Petitioner being a legal heir to the founder is also a member of the society. Petitioner objected to and challenged the jurisdiction of learned Lokyukta relating to charges of non-payment of electricity.
( 7 ) THE learned Lokayukta by his order dated 15. 05. 2002 took suo moto cognizance of the matter relating to non-payment of electricity and house tax of another property of the petitioner situated in J-2/20, rajouri Garden, New Delhi, in which he resides. The said property is under litigation as the owner of the property being mother of the petitioner left five legal heirs.
( 8 ) ON 14. 06. 2002 the learned Lokayukta after hearing the parties issued his report containing recommendations to the competent authority being Lt. Governor, under the Act.
( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the said report is passed in violation of canons of natural justice as contained in sections 10 and ,11 of the Act and he relied upon the material and evidence which was not in existence on the date. It was further contended that the witnesses were examined after closing of the case ,for orders and documents were brought on records without any notice to me parties.
( 10 ) ON 21. 06. 2002 petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor, stating all the facts and praying for personal hearing whereupon he was given an appointment for 25. 06.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
