Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Arvind Kumari W/o Dinesh Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7030 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Lokayukta Act - Consideration of Defence Reply - Section 12(3) and 10(1)(ka) of the Lokayukta Act, 2001 - The court quashed the order of the Lokayukta for want of non-consideration of the defense reply, emphasizing the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal cases or initiating departmental proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, challenged the order of the Lokayukta recommending the institution of criminal case and initiation of departmental proceedings against her. The petitioner contended that the defense reply was not considered before the recommendation was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defense reply was not properly considered before the Lokayukta's recommendation, emphasizing the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal cases or initiating departmental proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the non-consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta before making the recommendation for instituting criminal case and initiating departmental proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of the Lokayukta lacked proper consideration of the defense reply, emphasizing the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal cases or initiating departmental proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Lokayukta and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Lokayukta to consider the defense reply before passing a new order.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta in Complaint Case No. 01/Lok (Sikcha) 03/2011 wherein in exercise of power conferred under Section 12(3) and 10(1)(ka) of the Lokayukta Act, 2001, recommendation has been made for instituting criminal case as also for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, which is required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as:
A complaint has been lodged in the office of the Hon’ble Lokayukta by one Rajmohan Tiwari alleging therein that new primary school, Koriadih, Khurd has been established in the year 2003 against the norms as the same is situated at a distance of less than 01 Km from Koriadih, Middle School. It has been further alleged by the complainant that by making an establishment of fictitious school, misappropriation of government fund has been done towards mid-day meal, salary of teachers and construction of said school.
It has been also alleged that para teachers namely Harihar Mahato and Balgobind Mahato were appointed in said school in derogation of rules and suitable legal action is required to be taken.
Upon filing of complaint, departmental enquiry was made and, thereafter, Regional Deputy Director Education, Palamau Division, Medininagar submitted its report on 16.09.2011.
The following charges have been alleged against the petitioner:
(a) Despite being aware about the fact of appointment of over aged community teachers, the same was suppressed.
(b) Despite the order of stoppage of honorarium, it was continuously paid.
(c) Against the rule, the Koriadih School was upgraded.
(d) After upgradation of the School, recommended for selection of an over-aged person as community teacher from the family of a teacher who was already working there.
(e) Despite the reason being aware about the selection of over aged teachers the petitioner did not choose to act and by continuing payment of mid-day meal scheme and honorarium assisted embezzlement of government fund.
The petitioner filed its reply vide show cause reply dated 11.12.2012 and supplementary show cause reply dated 08.10.2013 denying the charges leveled against her. She has also annexed supporting documents to support her contention.
After hearing the parties, vide order dated 06.11.2013, passed by learned Lokayukt in complaint case no. 01/Lok (Sikcha) 03/2011, direction has been made to the Secretary, Human Resource Department Government of Jharkhand for lodging a First Information Report as well as for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner that after issuance of notice and service of complaint, it is required to be served under the provision of Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2001). Due reply was furnished for the purpose of investigation to be conducted by the Hon’ble Lokayukta but without taking into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner which has been submitted in defence to the allegations levelled against her, the recommendation was made in exercise of power conferred under Section 12(3) of the Act, 2001.
Counter affidavit has been filed wherein the issue of non-consideration has not been rebutted. However, the stand inter-alia has been taken in the counter affidavit by corroborating the allegation levelled against the writ petitioner and the stand has been taken that the writ petitioner, being the public servant, has been found involved in commission of financial irregularities.
The Hon’ble Lokayukta, after taking into consideration the nature of allegation and its reply, has passed order on 06.11.2013 by making recommendation to institute F.I.R. as also to initiate departme
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.
A quasi-judicial authority must observe natural justice by sharing complaint copies with affected parties. Investigating service-related allegations requires strict adherence to statutory limitation ....
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....
Compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory; failure to adhere to outlined procedures vitiates legal proceedings and investigations.
The court ruled that a preliminary inquiry does not require prior notice to a public servant and that the Lok Ayukta can proceed without forwarding a copy of the complaint unless a formal investigati....
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.
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
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
