JUDGMENT :

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant that the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019 but due to some error in the aforesaid order Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed being C.M.P. No.327 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 14.06.2019 by recalling the order dated 23.04.2019 in exercise of power of review and as such the writ petition has been listed.

2. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.01 Public (Irrigation) 01/2015, whereby and whereunder, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has recommended to institute an F.I.R.

3. The sole ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing such order, the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to offer his comments, as provided under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and therefore, the order impugned is 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 petitioner is that he 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner has disproportionate assets with his 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 petitioner and take legal action after collecting evidence against him. The said order is under challenge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 order impugned being not in consonance with the Statute, is 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 petitioner deem 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 apart from 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 position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself