IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 allegation by any person and in the form of grievance by the person aggrieved. Reference has also been made to the definition of “Grievance” given in Section 2(g) which states as follows:

‘Grievance’ means a claim by a person that he suffered injustice or hardship as a consequence of maladministration.

5. To emphasis on the distinction between a “grievance” and an “allegation” reference has also been made to Section 9 (3) of the Act of 2017 which pertains to limitation for an allegation and a grievance wherein the period of limitation are different.

6. Since the present case would revolve upon the provisions of Section 9, it would be convenient to extract the relevant provisions of Section 9 which are given as hereunder:

“Section-9: Matters not subject to Investigation:

(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the cases of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action:

(a) If such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule.”

7. It is submitted that Section 9 (1) (a) refers to the Second Schedule of the Act of 2017 under which certain actions have been stipulated. Under S. No. (d) of the Second Schedule, certain matters have been stipulated amongst which, superannuation is also one of the matters. For ready reference, S. No. (d) is extracted herein-below:

“(d) Action taken in respect of appointments, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claim which arise on retirement, removal on termination of service and such other action involving allegation of corruption in respect of appointment not barred under provision of section-35 of the Act.”

8. It is submitted that in the instant case, a complaint was lodged by a 3rd party alleging that the writ petitioners were overstaying in service and that was the matter of inquiry by the authority. It is, in this context that the writ petitioners had made a submission that such complaint would be barred under Section 9 of the Act of 2017 and the said submission was rejected by the order dated 07.12.2022 which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

9. Shri T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the bar which is envisaged under Section 9 of the Act of 2017 has to be given a strict interpretation as the objective and scheme of the Act is to have a corruption free society. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant, firstly that the bar would be applicable only in a complaint involving a grievance and in the instant case, the complaint was not involving a grievance per se but an allegation of overstay by the three writ