JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia, for quashing report dated 15.06.2021, passed by Lokayukta, Haryana, respondent No.4, Annexure P-5, as well as orders dated 24.08.2021 and 13.10.2021, Annexures P-7 and P-8, passed by official respondents, whereby, a Committee has been constituted/re-constituted to conduct an inquiry in compliance of report, Annexure P-5.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition may be noticed. Petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Director in the Department of Technical Education on 30.06.2018, after rendering more than 34 years of service. Respondent No.6-complainant was working as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the same department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for various acts of omission and commission, while he was posted at Government Polytechnic, Jhajjar. On the basis of an inquiry report, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.04.2013. He lodged an FIR bearing No.319 dated 18.06.2018, leveling fabricated allegations against petitioner and FIR was cancelled. Respondent No.6 filed a complaint bearing No.87 of 2014 before Lokayukta, Haryana, against petitioner and some other officers of the department on the allegation that they had obtained undue favours and caused financial loss to the Government. Complaint was forwarded to the Government for inquiring into it and Director General, Technical Education, furnished a report. By order dated 29.11.2016, Annexure P-1, Lokayukta disposed of the complaint. Another complaint bearing No.456 of 2016, Annexure P-2, was submitted by respondent No.6 before the Lokayukta on the allegation that an employee, Rajesh Sharma, Technical Assistant, has suppressed certain documents pertaining to bogus LTC claims from the department and had supplied a forged document to the petitioner who claimed LTC of Rs.4,555/- for a tour undertaken by him in the year 1989. The complaint was sent to the department. Upon being asked, petitioner filed a reply dated 07.02.2017, Annexure P-4. By its report dated 15.06.2021, Annexure P-5, Lokayukta directed the department to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matters regarding the LTC claim as also to constitute a SIT. On the basis of the report, Annexure P-5, official respondents constituted a Committee on 24.08.2021, which was reconstituted on 13.10.2021, Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively. Upon receiving an intimation for appearing before the Committee, petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the allegations pertain to the year 1989 and in view of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated in respect of any event, which has taken place more than four years before the institution of the complaint as the petitioner has retired from service. Counsel has contended that Lokayukta is a quasi judicial authority and principles of res judicata are applicable. He states that after the previous complaint on the same set of allegations was closed by the Lokayukta vide order, Annexure P-1, another complaint on similar allegations could not have been entertained. Reliance has been placed by the counsel upon Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai and Others, (2025) 5 SCC 772. It is also his argument that a Lokayukta cannot delegate the power to conduct an inquiry upon a department. He has made a reference to Section 17 of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) as well as a judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Amit Mann Vs. State of Haryana and Others (CWP-6688-2014, decided on 05.02.2015)

4. Writ petition has been contested by the official respondents by filing a response on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, wherein it has been stated that an inquiry was conducted into the allegations leveled against the petitioner on the basis of intimation received from Lokayukta and all