Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Shahank Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Office Of Hon''ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand Through Its Secretary & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 263 of 2019
Decided On : 22-04-2019
Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The Lokayukta's power to make recommendations is limited by the statutory provisions, and strict compliance with the procedures laid down in the Act is necessary.
Headnote:
Lokayukta - Jurisdiction - Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Lokayukta's recommendation to institute an FIR, contending that it exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. The respondent argued that the recommendation was valid, citing a judgment of the Honble Apex Court in a similar case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta's recommendation to institute an FIR was not in line with the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act, which only allows for recommendations after investigation and communication of findings to the competent authority. The court modified the order to quash the direction to institute an FIR and directed compliance with Section 12 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Lokayukta's recommendation to institute an FIR exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Lokayukta's power to make recommendations is limited by the provisions of Section 12, which require communication of findings to the competent authority before any recommendation is made. The court also emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory procedures.
Final Decision: The court modified the Lokayukta's order to quash the direction to institute an FIR and directed compliance with Section 12 of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.01.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.2/Lok (Finance) 01/2017, whereby and whereunder the Honble Lokayukta has recommended to institute an F.I.R and to report within six weeks.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Honble Lokayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction by making a recommendation with the proposal to institute F.I.R which is in the teeth of provision as contained in Section 12 of the Lokayukta Act, 2001 whereby and whereunder, it has been provided that the Lokayukta after making investigation is to make recommendation before the competent authority for taking action on its part and to submit action report before him but he in contrary to the said provision has made recommendation to institute FIR which cannot be said to be recommendation rather it is in the nature of direction upon the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi for institution of FIR against him and hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 whereby and whereunder stand has been taken that in course of investigation complaint has been made against the petitioner and recommendation to institute and FIR has been passed and as such the same cannot be said to be in consonance with the statutory provision, the reliefs upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case Rang Nath Mishra Vs. State of UP reported in (2015) 8 SCC 117 and, therefore, submission has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
4. 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.
5. 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 position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person.
(ii) Was actuated in the discharge of the function as such public servant by personal interest or improper, corrupt motives, or
(iii) is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant.
2(d). "Grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration;
6. It is evident from the definition of allegation that the same pertains to a public servant, if such public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or any favour to himself or to any other person to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, was actuated in the discharge of the function by personal interest or improper corrupt motives or is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity, as the public servant.
7. While, on the other hand, the grievance means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration.
8. Section 10 of the Act, 2001 provides procedure in respect of investigation, which stipulates hereunder:-
"10. Procedure in respect of investigation.- (1) Where the Lokayukta proposes (after making such preliminary inquiry, as he deems fit) to conduct any investigation under this Act he-
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint or, in the case of any investigation which he proposes to conduct on his own motion, a statement setting out the grounds therefor, to the
