Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, BUDI HABUNG
Nagaland Lokayukta – Appellant
Versus
Catherine Dzuvichu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The Nagaland Lokayukta has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/8/2023. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2024, the writ petition filed by three writ petitioners, who are respondents in this appeal, was allowed.
2. The writ petition was instituted against an order dated 07.12.2022 by the Upa-Lokayukta, Nagaland, Kohima on behalf of the Nagaland Lokayukta whereby the prayer of the writ petitioners to invoke the provisions of Section 9 was rejected and the matter was decided to be proceeded further.
3. We have heard Shri T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Shri C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri I Imchen, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Shri E. Thiba Phom, learned State Counsel, Nagaland for the respondent no. 4.
4. Shri T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant has extensively referred to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 (Act of 2017). Under Section 10, the provisions relating to complaints have been laid down. It provides that a complaint may be made in the form of an alle
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 9 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 and the applicability of the bar of investigation in the case.
The Lokayukta was barred from conducting a preliminary enquiry on the complaint of overstay in service under Section 9(1)(a) and Clause-(d) to the Second Schedule of the Act.
While an investigative body may possess jurisdiction to report on corruption in service appointments, any subsequent disciplinary action against public servants requires adherence to the principles o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the rec....
Section 9 of the Act, 1999 deals with provisions relating to complaints and investigation.
The dismissal of a complaint does not automatically warrant prosecution for false complaint under Section 21(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act; clear reasoning for malicious intent is required.
The Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the disciplinary actions of public servants as stipulated in Section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
The power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so.
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
