Jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta in deciding complaints involving actions specified in Schedule II under Section 8(1)(b) of Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. DESAI, J.

The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, rejecting an application filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant, a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kumily Police Station, Idukki district, arrayed as the first respondent in the complaint. The application was filed questioning the maintainability of a complaint filed by one Jai James, the second respondent herein, before the Lok Ayukta, requesting to take action against the appellant for falsely arraying the complainant as an accused in an FIR. The case put forth by the original complainant before the Lok Ayukta is as under :

2. The original complainant is a practising Advocate and member of the Peerumedu Bar Association. The complainant had defended his client Benoy Mathew in Crime Nos.1644/2013, 1645/2013 and 1646/2013 registered at the Kumily Police Station. Benoy Mathew filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta alleging that the police personnel in the Kumily Station had harassed him. The Lok Ayukta ordered an investigation into the allegations in the complaint and appointed an Advocate Commissioner for that purpose. As part of the enquiry, the Advocate Commissioner visited Kumily Police Station also. Being the complainant’s Counsel, the 2nd respondent accompanied the Advocate Commissioner. The appellant and other policemen created an unruly scene in the police station and thereafter registered Crime No.372/2014, on the false allegation that the Advocates obstructed the policemen from carrying out their duties and destroyed public property. Even though the 1st respondent was not originally arrayed as accused, his name was incorporated before submitting the FIR in court after two days. Hence, the complaint was filed, alleging that the action of the appellant amounted to maladministration.

3. On receipt of notice from the Lok Ayukta, the appellant appeared and submitted an application through the Government Pleader, challenging the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to decide the complaint. The application came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, i.e., the Sub Inspector, vehemently submitted that the Lok Ayukta has committed error in rejecting the application. He would submit that the Lok Ayukta is not competent to examine whether the allegation that the Sub Inspector had falsely implicated the Advocate, is correct or not. He would submit that only a competent court can decide whether the allegations made by the complainant about the false implication are true or not. He further submitted that, under Section 8 (1)(a) read with Clause (b) of II Schedule of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act,1999, the action was undertaken by the Investigating Officer relating to the crime and, therefore, Lok Ayukta has no power to examine this aspect. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned order as well as the complaint filed by the respondent Advocate be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the original complainant opposed this petition and supported the observations made by the Lok Ayukta in the order impugned. He would further submit that he has been falsely implicated in the crime only on the ground that his client had filed a complaint against the present appellant. He would also submit that the Lok Ayukta is bestowed with power under Section 7 r/w 8 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. He would, therefore, submit that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the complaint made by the respondent Advocate is with regard to the allegation of his false implication in the FIR, registered as Crime No.372/2014 at the Kumily Police Station. In our opinion, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations are to be examined by the competent cou