Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sushil Kumar Prasad, S/o. Late Sitaram Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order passed by the Lokayukta dated 30.09.2013 (appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition) under Section 12(3) read with Section 12(5) (A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 whereby and whereunder recommendations have been made for suspending the petitioner and for initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against him.
2. The matter was taken up on 06.05.2022 and on that day, the State respondent was directed to apprise this Court about the status/outcome of the order impugned dated 30.09.2013. The order dated 06.05.2022 reads hereunder as :-
None appears for the petitioner.
However, Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appears for the State of Jharkhand.
Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent-State disclosing therein the present status/outcome of the order impugned dated 30.09.2013 on or before the next date of hearing.
Put up this case on 16.06.2022.”
3. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to G.A.-II, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, has submitted on instruction that no criminal
The Court upheld the initiation of departmental proceeding based on Lokayukta's recommendation, citing precedent where interference with FIR was declined based on Lokayukta's finding.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal....
Proper consideration, involving active application of mind, is necessary when evaluating defense replies in cases involving allegations against public servants.
The doctrine of necessity applies to single-member statutory bodies, permitting the authority to perform functions despite allegations of bias, as the power to make final determinations cannot be del....
The main legal point established is the requirement for active consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta before making recommendations for departmental proceedings, in line with the princip....
The main legal point established is that the procedure for redressal of grievances under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, can only be followed by the Lokayukta, and the court cannot entertain such ....
The Lokayukta is a necessary party in proceedings under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, affirming its quasi-judicial role.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority must adhere to the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, particularly Section 12(3), (4) and (5), and must not co....
The refusal of the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a discretionary administrative act, and judicial review is limited to ensuring the decis....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
