Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Ram Yatan Ram S/o Late Dukha Ram – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7365 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Lokayukta Act - Departmental Proceeding - Section 12(3) and 10(1)(ka) - The court discussed the provisions of the Lokayukta Act, 2001, specifically focusing on the requirement for active consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta before making a recommendation for initiating departmental proceedings. The court emphasized the need for proper application of mind and active consideration of the defense reply, as mandated by the statutory provisions. The court also highlighted the limitations of the writ of certiorari, emphasizing that findings of fact reached by the tribunal cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District Education Officer, was accused of irregularities in the establishment of a primary school and appointment of teachers. The Lokayukta recommended initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner based on the complaint. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the defense reply was not considered before the recommendation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta failed to actively consider the defense reply before making the recommendation for departmental proceedings, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed and set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Lokayukta for fresh consideration.
Issues: The key issue was the lack of active consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta before recommending departmental proceedings, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for active consideration of the defense reply by the Lokayukta before making recommendations for departmental proceedings, highlighting the principles of natural justice and the limitations of the writ of certiorari in questioning findings of fact.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Lokayukta for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for active consideration of the defense reply.
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 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, enquiry was made and, thereafter, Regional Deputy Director Education, Palamau Division, Medininagar submitted its report on 10.01.2012.
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) Accorded approval for establishment of Primary School, Koriadihkhurd even though sufficient number of children was not there as also ignoring the fact that there is already a school in the nearby locality.
(c) Accorded approval for selection of over aged teachers as also for managing the affairs of the school, assisted in embezzlement of Government fund for mid-day meal scheme and honorarium.
The petitioner filed its reply vide its letter dated 04.12.2012 and supplementary show cause reply dated 09.10.2013 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.
Replying the allegations made against him, it has inter-alia been stated in the reply to show cause that he had been posted as District Education officer, Palamau from 05.08.2003 to 13.07.2004 and he was also given the charge of District Program Officer of Serva Shiksha Abhiyan from 10.09.2003 to 13.07.2004.
Further, it has been stated that during his tenure as District Education Officer cum District Program Officer, Serva shiksha Abhiyan, Palamau he has issued guidelines regarding appointment of Para Teacher vide letter no. 185 dated 16.10.2003 whereby maximum age for appointment of para teacher of Government Primary and Middle School has been fixed as 40 years and he has always followed the guidelines in the matter regarding selection of para teachers, however so far as the present case is concerned the selection of Harihar Mahto was done by resolution of Gram Sabha on 09.12.2002. The selection was approved by Block Level Committee on 08.10.2003 i.e. before issuance of letter no. 185 dated 16.10.2003. Hence there is no question of following of the guideline issued by the petitioner.
The petitioner further stated that so far as appointment of alleged Community teachers are concerned he has been selected by concerned Gram Shiksha Samittee on 09.12.2002 and their selection was approved by Block Level Committee on 08.10.2003. There was no provision regarding approval of selection of teachers at District Level. Approval from Block Level was final stage in the matter of selection of Community Teachers.
It has also been stated that in fact prior to issuance of letter no. 185 dated 16.10.2003 t
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....
Once the court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the....
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
