Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3370
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shri Narayan Shukla, Pratyush Kumar, JJ.
Arun Kumar Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 234 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2015
For the Appellant :- C.B. Pandey
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Anupam Mehrotra and Sameer Kalia.
The Lokayukta had the authority to investigate the actions of the petitioner and recommend the case to be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite technical objections raised by the petitioner.
Headnote:
Lokayukta - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta - Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 - Section 9, Section 7, Section 2(j)(V)(d) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of Lokayukta under the Act, 1975 and the definition of 'public servant' as per Section 2(j)(V)(d). The court found that the Lokayukta had the authority to investigate the actions of the petitioner, who was found to have committed financial irregularities, and recommended the case to be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that technical objections raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the complaint before the Lokayukta should not be a reason to ignore the serious allegations of financial irregularities. The Lokayukta's role as a quasi-judicial authority and the empowerment under Section 12(3) of the Act were highlighted in the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged a summoning order and recommendations of Lokayukta, alleging lack of jurisdiction and technical defects in the complaint. The court found that the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner's actions, which led to the recommendation of the case to be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the role of the Lokayukta as a quasi-judicial authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner's actions and recommend the case to be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the role of the Lokayukta as a quasi-judicial authority.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Lokayukta, Technical objections raised by the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The Lokayukta had jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner's actions and recommend the case to be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Technical objections raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the complaint before the Lokayukta should not be a reason to ignore the serious allegations of financial irregularities.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the Lokayukta's jurisdiction and recommendations.
Heard Mr. C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Anupam Mehrotra, learned Advocate appears for respondent No. 3 and perused the record.
2. Appearance of Mr. Samir Kalia, Advocate is recorded for O.P. No. 7.
3. This is an intra court appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 5th June, 2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7218 (MS) of 2013 (Arun Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others).
4. The appellant had field a writ petition No. 7218 (MS) of 2013 (Arun Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others) before the learned Single Judge with the following reliefs: -
i) Issue a writ , order or direction including a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned summoning order dated 27.05.2013 passed by opposite party No. 3, which is quasi judicial order in nature, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Cetioriari thereby quashing the decision/recommendation of the opposite party No. 3 published in the daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 20.07.2013, after summoning its original from the opposite parties and further be pleased to quash the orders, if any, passed by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2, 4, & 5 in pursuance of orders impugned passed by opposite party No. 3.
iii) Issue a writ, order or directing including a writ of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the order/recommendation made by Hon'ble Lokayukta as published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala'.
5. The appellant had challenged the order dated 27th May, 2013 before the learned Single Judge, which was a summoning order thereby the petitioner was summoned to face the proceeding before the Lokayukta and also the recommendations of Lokayukta dated 19th July, 2013 whereby Lokayukta had recommended several actions to be taken up against the petitioner. The appellant had challenged the recommendations of Lokayukta inter alia on the grounds that the complaint dated 15.04.2013 was defective as it had not followed with the affidavit, therefore, in view of Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975, it was not a valid complaint in the eyes of law, consequently, the summoning order was not enforceable.
6. The appellant further took a ground that since he was not a public servant, therefore, Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint dated 15.04.2013 against him, thus, the recommendations made by him on the basis of a complaint was alleged to be without jurisdiction.
7. The learned Single Judge after discussing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 458 (SB) of 2000 (Anoop Rai Jain and others Vs. State of U.P. And others), held that "the DRDA is an instrumentality of the State Government on which, the State Government exercises deep and pervasive control and as such, the petitioner though may not be a public servant, he is certainly an officer/employee appointed to a post in connection with the affairs of the State Government and is as such, amenable to any enquiry by the Lokayukta under the 'Act, 1975'."
8. The learned Single Judge has discussed the validity of complaint in a manner that "petitioner was summoned as a witness before the Lokayukta though the complaint was against him also, however, the respondent no.3 in his own wisdom, summoned the petitioner only as a witness and proceeded as such only, however, during the enquiry it was found that the petitioner himself was involved in commission of the acts which constituted an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and that he had also misconducted himself in discharge of his duties as a servant of the DRDA. Respondent no.3, being a constitutional authority who could not shut its eyes on discovery of commission of a cognizable offence made, recommendations which are the main cause of concern for the petitioner."
9. Lastly, learned Single
