The Competent Authority must independently examine the Lokayukt report and make a decision before issuing a charge-sheet, as per Section 12(2) of the M.P. Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.

JUDGMENT

As per Shantanu Kemkar, J.: -

This intra Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is filed against the order dated 5-4-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7054/09 (S).

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant/petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector on 30-1-1987. He was promoted from the said post to the post of Joint Collector w.e.f. 1-1-1994. Thereafter he was further promoted as Additional Collector vide order dated 30-12-2000 and was granted selection grade vide order dated 15-12-2008 w.e.f. 8-9-2008.

3. On 21-7-2009 a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant/petitioner for the alleged misconduct committed by him during the period 1992-1993 and 1999. Aggrieved by belated issuance of the charge-sheet, the appellant had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 7054/09 (S) praying for quashment of the charge-sheet on the ground of delay and latches.

4. The respondent filed reply to the writ petition and stated that the charge-sheet has been issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Lokayukt Organization which found the petitioner to be guilty in the enquiry conducted in respect of the complaint received against him. The respondent explained the delay by stating that in the detailed enquiry conducted by the Lokayukt about the complaint received against him much time was consumed.

5. A rejoinder was filed by the appellant/petitioner before the Writ Court challenging the action of the State Government in issuance of charge-sheet, on the ground that merely on the basis of recommendation of the Lokayukt Organization the State Government could not have issued the charge-sheet mechanically without examining the recommendation. The respondent filed reply to the rejoinder and justified their action of issuance of the charge-sheet on the basis of recommendation of Lokayukt.

6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after going through the record relating to the issuance of charge-sheet dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

7. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that after receipt of the enquiry report from the Lokayukt, the Competent Authority of the State Government ordered for issuance of charge-sheet to the appellant without examining the said report. He argued that the Lokayukt Organization can only recommend about the action to be taken on it but is not empowered to direct the Competent Authority of the State Government to issue charge-sheet as has been done in this matter. He also argued that in the impugned order the learned Single Judge though recorded a finding that after receiving the report from Lokayukt Organization the State Government with due application of mind has framed the charge-sheet and has issued the same to the petitioner but in the entire record of the State Government, there is no material available on the basis of which such a finding could have been recorded by the learned Single Judge.

8. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and has argued that after receiving the enquiry report from the Lokayukt Organization, the Competent Authority of the State Government had examined the same and after due application of mind a decision was taken to issue charge-sheet to the appellant.

9. To verify the correctness of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to the effect that in the original record of the State Government there is no material available from which it can be said that the Competent Authority of the State Government had applied its mind on the said enquiry report and then took a decision to issue charge-sheet to the appellant, the Deputy Govt. Advocate was directed to make available the original record. The same was produced and we have perused