Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
Meera Devi Saxena (Smt.) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Writ Appeal No. 995 of 2022 (Gwalior): against the order
dated 26.7.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 21614/2018;
Decided on 12.10.2022
(1) Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M. P.) -- Ss. 10, 13 (6), 13-A and 12 -- M. P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt (Investigation) Rules, 1982 -- Rr. 5 and 16 -- M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 -- Ss. 3 (26), 45 and 41-A -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 21 -- enquiry under 1981 Act -- neither summary enquiry nor mere formality -- Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt or Divisional Vigilance Committee required to decide procedure to be followed for making enquiry in each case -- while so doing, ensure that principles of natural justice are satisfied as required u/ss. 10 and 13 (6) of 1981 Act -- infraction or deviation of such procedure established by law shall be violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of Constitution -- opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to public servant not only to facilitate him/her to inspect complaint, affidavit and documents (as provided u/r. 16 of 1982 Rules) but also to ascertain veracity, authenticity and relevancy of their contents before any adverse inference is drawn therefrom to prejudice of public servant -- if complainant or other witnesses are examined, opportunity to cross-examine them must be afforded -- authorities under 1981 Act required to consider point of view of person against whom complaint has been made while forwarding report and to ensure that investigation reaches logical conclusion -- Divisional Vigilance Committee unilaterally prepared enquiry report after submission of reply by petitioner -- thereafter, Legal Advisor forwarded report to Collector vide impugned communication -- as per procedure prescribed u/s. 12 (3) of 1981 Act, Lokayukt should have waited for response from State Government regarding action on such report -- Legal Advisor to Lokayukt is neither authority competent under 1981 Act to communicate with Collector in matter of action on report of Divisional Vigilance Committee, nor has authority in law -- impugned communication bad in law and ultra vires to 1981 Act -- Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt is required to communicate enquiry report as per procedure prescribed u/s. 12 of 1981 Act -- 1981 Act does not empower Lokayukt, Up-Lokayukt or Divisional Vigilance Committee to lodge FIR -- petitioner was elected President of Nagarpalika -- competent authority in case of petitioner is State Government, not Collector -- adherence to provisions regarding enquiry and action on enquiry report u/ss. 12, 13-A (5) and 13-A (6) of 1981 Act are mandatory -- non-compliance/avoidance shall render mandate of Ss. 12, 13-A (5) and 13-A (6) otiose -- FIR quashed. (2013) 3 SCC 117 followed. 2011 (3) MPLJ 598 relied on. (2017) 5 SCC 533 and 2011 (3) 12 MPHT 44 distinguished. Writ Petitions No. 24598 of 2018 and 24594 of 2018 decided on 27.10.2018 overruled. [Paras 22, 23, 26 to 36 & 39
(2) Natural Justice -- principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to hard and fast formulae or be put in straight-jacket -- their applicability depends upon context and facts and circumstances of each case -- object is to ensure fair hearing, a fair deal to person whose rights are going to be affected. AIR 1982 SC 710, AIR 1978 SC 851 and AIR 1981 SC 818 referred to. [Para 25
(3) Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M. P.) -- Ss. 10, 13 (6), 13-A and 12 -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 21 -- enquiry under 1981 Act -- being serious in nature and having penal consequences, may be detrimental to rights and liberty of public servant -- procedure of enquiry must be in conformity with mandate of Arts. 14 and 21 of Constitution. [Para 26
(4) Lokayukt -- office of the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt is quasi-judicial authority -- its functions or duties, particularly in context of enquiry, are not purely administrative or executive but are quasi-judicial in nature. [Para 26
(5) Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M. P.) -- S. 12 -- inaction on part of State Government within time frame provided u/s. 12 (2) entitles Lokayukt to take recourse to provisions contained in 12 (3) of Act. [Para 42
¼1½ yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ && èkkjk 10] 13 ¼6½] 13&d rFkk 12 && e-iz- yksdk;qDr ,oa miyksdk;qDr ¼vUos"k.k½ fu;e] 1982 && fu- 5 rFkk 16 && e-iz- uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 3 ¼26½] 45 rFkk 41&d Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 rFkk 21 && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu tk¡p && u rks laf{kIr tk¡p gksrh gS vkSj u vkSipkfjdrk ek= && yksdk;qDr vFkok mi&yksdkqDr vFkok laHkkxh; lrdZrk lfefr }kjk izR;sd ekeys esa tk¡p djus ds fy, vuqlj.k dh tkus okyh izfØ;k fofuf'pr dh tkuk visf{kr && ,slk djrs le; lqfuf'pr djuk fd lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 rFkk 13¼6½ ds vèkhu ;Fkkisf{kr uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dh iwfrZ gks && fof/k }kjk LFkkfir ,slh izfØ;k ds O;frØe.k vFkok mlls fopyu ls lafo/kku ds vuq- 14 rFkk 21 dk vfrØe.k gksxk && yksd lsod dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj mls ¼lu~ 1982 ds fu;eksa ds fu-16 ds v/khu micaf/kr fd, x, vuqlkj½ f'kdk;r] 'kiFki= vkSj nLrkostksa dk fujh{k.k djus ds fy, gh ugha vfirq muds vk/kkj ij yksd lsod dks izfrdwyr% izHkkfor djus okyk vuqeku fudkyus ds iwoZ mudh varoZLrq dh lR;rk] izekf.kdrk vkSj lqlaxrk vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, Hkh fn;k tkuk vko';d gS && f'kdk;rdrkZ vFkok vU; lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk dh tk, rks mUgsa izfrijhf{kr djus dk volj vo'; fn;k tkuk pkfg, && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izfrosnu vxzsf"kr djrs le;] ftlds fo#) f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS ml O;fDr ds n`f"Vdks.k ij fopkj fd;k tkuk rFkk ;g lqfuf'pr djuk visf{kr fd vUos"k.k rdZlaxr iw.kZ gks && ;kph }kjk mÙkj fn, tkus ds i'pkr~ laHkkxh; lrdZrk lfefr us ,di{kh; tk¡p izfrosnu rS;kj fd;k && rRi'pkr~] fofèkd lykgdkj us vkf{kIr lalwpuk ds ek/;e ls izfrosnu dysDVj dks vxzsf"kr fd;k && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ¼3½ ds v/khu fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj yksdk;qDr dks ml izfrosnu ij dkjZokbZ ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds mÙkj dh izrh{kk djuk pkfg, Fkh && laHkkxh; lrdZrk lfefr ds izfrosnu ij dkjZokbZ ds fo"k; esa dysDVj dks lalwfpr djus ds fy, yksdk;qDr dk fof/kd lykgdkj u rks lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh] u mls fof/k esa izkf/kdkj gh && vkf{kIr lalwpuk fof/k dh n`f"V esa nks"kiw.kZ rFkk lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e ds vfèkdkjkrhr && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds v/khu fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj yksdk;qDr vFkok mi&yksdkqDr }kjk tk¡p izfrosnu lalwfpr fd;k tkuk visf{kr && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfue; esa yksdk;qDr] mi&yksdkqDr vFkok laHkkxh; lrdZrk lfefr dks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus ds fy, l'kDr ugha fd;k x;k && ;kph uxjikfydk dh fuokZfpr v/;{k Fkh && ;kph ds ekeys esa l{ke izkfèkdkjh jkT; ljdkj gS] dysDVj ugha && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12] 13&d¼5½ rFkk 13&d ¼6½ ds v/khu tk¡p rFkk tk¡p izfrosnu ij dkjZokbZ ds lacaèk esa mica/kksa dk vuqorZu vkKkid gS && vuuqikyu@ifjgkj ls /kkjk 12] 13&d¼5½ vkSj 13&d¼6½ dh vkKk fujFkZd gks tk,xh && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA ¼2013½3 ,l lh lh 117 vuqlfjrA 2011 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 598 voyafcrA ¼2017½5 ,l lh lh 533 rFkk 2011 ¼3½12 ,e ih ,p Vh 44 izHksfnrA fjV ;kfpdk,¡ Ø- 24598 lu~ 2018 rFkk 24594 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 27-10-2018 myVh xbZA ¼iSjk 22] 23 26 ls 36 ,oa 39
¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dks iDds vFkok vifjorZuh; lw=ksa esa ugha ढkyk tk ldrk && mudk ykxw gksuk izR;sd ekeys ds lanHkZ rFkk rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gS && mís'; gS] ftl O;fDr ds vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksaxs mls _tq lquokbZ] _tq O;ogkj lqfuf'pr djukA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 710] , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 851 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 818 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 5
¼3½ yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 10] 13¼6½] 13&d rFkk 12 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 rFkk 21 && lu~ 1981 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu tk¡p && xaHkhj izÑfr dh gksus rFkk nkafMd ifj.kke gksus ds dkj.k] yksd lsod ds vf/kdkjksa rFkk Lokra=~; ds fy, vfgrdj gks ldrh gS && tk¡p dh izfØ;k lafo/kku ds vuq-14 rFkk 21 dh vkKk ds vuq:i gksuk vko';dA ¼iSjk 26
¼4½ yksdk;qDr && yksdk;qDr vFkok mi&yksdkqDr dk dk;kZy; U;kf;ddYi izkf/kdj.k gS && mlds ÑR; vFkok drZO;] fof'k"Vr% tk¡p ds lanHkZ esa] fo'kq)r% iz'kklfud vFkok dk;Zikyd ugha gksrs vfirq U;kf;ddYi izÑfr ds gksrs gSaA ¼iSjk 6
¼5½ yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12 && /kkjk 12 ¼2½ ds v/khu micaf/kr le;&lhek ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj dh fuf"Ø;rk ls yksdk;qDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼3½ esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa dk vkJ; ysus ds gdnkj gks tkrs gSaA ¼iSjk 42
ORDER
1. This intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 26.7.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.21614/2018.
2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is expedient to reiterate the relevant factual matrix. The petitioner/appellant has been an elected President of Nagar Palika Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) for a term of five years 1.1.2015 to 31.12.2020.
3. It appears that a complaint was filed in the office of Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh. The complaint was made over to the Divisional Vigilance Committee for enquiry. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry report was forwarded by the Legal Advisor, Lokayukt office, to the Collector, District Vidisha (M.P.) to initiate action on the basis of the report vide communication dated 23.7.2018 (Annexure P-2). The Collector, in turn, vide communication dated 20.8.2018, (Annexure P-1) directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika, Lateri District Vidisha (M.P.) to lodge the FIR.
4. Petitioner challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid two communications in Writ Petition No.21614/2018. The learned Single Judge, vide interim order dated 19.9.2018, stayed the effect and operation of the aforesaid two communications, until further orders.
5. Upon notice, though Lokayukt Organization and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagal Palika Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.)-respondent No.5, filed counter-affidavits but none of the remaining respondents including the State Government filed counter-affidavit.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge was of the view that once the report has been forwarded by the Legal Advisor of the Lokayukt vide communication dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter on the direction vide communication dated 20.8.2018 (Annexure P-1) of the Collector, District Vidisha, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) lodged an FIR, no interference is warranted as the suspect/accused has no right of pre-hearing before lodging of an FIR and the criminal machinery can be put into motion by any complainant. The learned Single Judge also opined that the Collector by his letter dated 20.08.2018 in his wisdom directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) to lodge the FIR. Hence, no exception can be taken thereto and accordingly dismissed the petition. It may be mentioned that there was no FIR either before or on the date of the impugned order in the wake of interim order dated 19.9.2018.
7. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge in fact and in effect misdirected itself while justifying the impugned communications as contained in para 8 of the impugned order, unmindul of the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (for brevity “1981 Act”) and provisions made thereunder. Further elaborating his submissions, Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, submits that Divisional Vigilance Committee is constituted by the State Government by way of notification in the official gazette under section 13-A of the 1981 Act. Under sub-section (5) of section 13-A of the 1981 Act, the Divisional Vigilance Committee is empowered to enquire into a complaint referred to it by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt and submit report to the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be. Sub-section (6) of section 13-A of the 1981 Act provides that in holding the enquiry, the Committee shall ensure that the principles of natural justice are observed.
8. Section 12 of the 1981 Act provides, inter alia, under sub-section (1) that if, after enquiry into the allegations the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt is satisfied that such allegation is established, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommend
Natural Justice – Aim to rule of natural justice is to secure justice – These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made.
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....
The Lokayukta was barred from conducting a preliminary enquiry on the complaint of overstay in service under Section 9(1)(a) and Clause-(d) to the Second Schedule of the Act.
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the rec....
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 ....
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
