Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Late Panchanan Jha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7252 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Lokayukta Act - Allegations of financial irregularities against public servant - Lack of consideration of defense reply by Lokayukta - Quashing of impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, was alleged to have been involved in financial irregularities. The Lokayukta, after receiving the petitioner's defense reply, recommended instituting criminal case and initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the defense reply was not considered by the Lokayukta.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order lacked consideration of the defense reply, which is required by the Lokayukta Act. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Lokayukta for passing a fresh order after considering the defense reply.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta, as required by the Lokayukta Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of consideration of the defense reply rendered the impugned order invalid. It emphasized that proper consideration, involving active application of mind, is necessary when evaluating defense replies in such cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Lokayukta for fresh consideration.
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 the respondent no. 3 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 by the respondent no. 3, departmental enquiry was made and, thereafter, Director Primary Education, Human Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand submitted its report on 19.09.2011.
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) 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 its letter dated 14.12.2012 to the Under Secretary, Office of Lokayukta, Ranchi annexing supporting documents to his contention.
The petitioner has replied all the three charges levelled against him. So far as first charge is concerned it is stated by the petitioner that he has joined as District Superintendent of Education, Palamu on 09.04.2008 and has taken dual charge of District Programme Officer, Sarva Sikcha Abhiyan, Palamu w.e.f. 16.04.2008 whereas selection and recommendation of the para teacher/community teachers of new primary education, Koriadih was done prior to his date of joining. It has been further stated that the selection of community/para teacheris done through Aam Sabha in which the petitioner has no role to play.
So far as second charge is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that it was the petitioner who vide its letter no. 169 dated 04.02.2009 passed order of stoppage of honorarium and, thereafter two reports dated 11.07.2009 and 03.07.2009 were submitted on the basis of which the petitioner has issued order of release of honorarium.
So far as third charge is concerned it has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has got no role in selection of community/para teachers as the same is routed through Aaam Sabha. It has also been stated that on the basis of both enquiry reports dated 10.06.2009 and 11.07.2009 the petitioner has acted upon and thus the petitioner is not involved in misappropriation of Government fund.
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 depa
Proper consideration, involving active application of mind, is necessary when evaluating defense replies in cases involving allegations against public servants.
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....
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....
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
