In both these writ petitions, common issues have been raised and therefore, both have been directed to be heard together and accordingly, heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. The order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-3), passed in Complaint Case No. 01/Lok (Social Welfare) 02/12 in both these writ petitions are under challenge, whereby and whereunder the Hon’ble Lokayukta has directed the Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute an FIR against them, conduct thorough investigation and after collecting documents take appropriate legal action and to report the same within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The sole ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before passing such orders, the petitioners have not been provided an opportunity to offer their comments, as provided under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and therefore, the orders impugned are not in consonance with the Statute, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, inter alia, stating therein, regarding the nature of allegation, preliminary enquiry and the Rule having been followed, as provided under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, before delving into the merit of the issues, and after appreciating their rival submissions, the factual aspects, as has been pleaded by the writ petitioners are that they being the public servant against whom, a complaint has been made before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, who upon its receipt, has directed the competent authority of the District Rural Development Authority-cum-Nodal Officer to submit a report and in pursuance thereto, reports have been submitted, wherein, it has been brought to the notice that against the said allegations, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi has also been directed to conduct an enquiry, who thereafter conducted an enquiry. Thereafter, the reports have been submitted, wherein, it has been found that the petitioners have disproportionate assets with their possession and thereafter, direction has been passed upon the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute an F.I.R. against the petitioners and take legal action after collecting evidence against them. The said order is under challenge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the issue of noncompliance of the statutory provision, as stipulated under Section 10 (1)

(b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and since the same has not been complied with, therefore, the orders impugned order being not in consonance with the Statute, are not sustainable, accordingly, has been sought to be quashed. This Court before going into the legality and propriety of the order, as per the ground taken by the petitioners deems it fit and proper to deal with the provision of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, behind which the Lokayukta Act, has been enacted upon.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, this Court thinks it proper to have discussion about the provision of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 prior to coming into effect of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’, 2001’), there was operation of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973 and after bifurcation of the State, the Act, 2001 has been promulgated.

8. The Act contains definition of grievance and allegation apartfrom the other definitions, but the grievance and allegation is the issue, which is to be dealt with in the instant writ petition, therefore, the definitions are being referred hereunder :-

“2 (b). “Allegation” in relation to a public servant means by affirmation that such public servant –

(i) Has abused his