1. Writ challenging Lokpal orders directing investigation under Lokpal Act, 2013, without affording prior hearing to the petitioner as required by Section 20(3). (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 9 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
MUJAHAT ALI KHAN – Appellant
Versus
LOKPAL OF INDIA THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16035/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hitesh Kumar, Nishant Singh, Vishal Yadav
For the Respondents: Nishant Katneshwar, Vijay Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hitesh Kumar, Nishant Singh, Vishal Yadav
For the Respondents: Nishant Katneshwar, Vijay Singh
The pre-investigation hearing under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 is mandatory. Failure to afford such hearing to a public servant before ordering investigation vitiates the proceedings; subsequent post-investigation hearing cannot cure the defect.
Headnote:(A) Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - Sections 20(1)(a), 20(3)(a), 20(5), 20(7), 20(9) - Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 8 - Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Statutory Interpretation - Mandatory procedure - Doctrine that when a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all (Taylor v. Taylor; Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor) - Scope of judicial review under Article 226 - High Court not to reappreciate evidence but to ensure fair process.
(B) The requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servant under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act before directing an investigation is mandatory. The legislative scheme under Section 20 makes it clear that compliance with the requirement of affording an opportunity to the public servant is not optional but mandatory at the pre-investigation stage as well as the post-investigation stage. (Paras 37-39) - Omission of this step, especially when it results in registration of an FIR and initiation of criminal investigation, constitutes violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. (Para 42) - Subsequent participation at the post-investigation stage under Section 20(7) cannot retrospectively validate an order passed without fulfilling the mandatory precondition of hearing. (Para 44) - The Lokpal, being a quasi-judicial authority vested with powers that carry penal and stigmatic consequences, is duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed by law. (Para 46) - Having regard to stringent and penal consequences under Sections 29 and 32 of the Act (transfer, suspension, attachment of assets), strict adherence to procedural safeguards is necessary. (Para 47)
(C) The writ court under Article 226 does not sit as a court of appeal over decisions of expert bodies. Judicial interference is warranted only where the authority has acted without jurisdiction, committed grave procedural irregularity, ignored basic tenets of natural justice, or arrived at a manifestly arbitrary or perverse conclusion. (Paras 24-26, citing Vishal Tiwari and Ajay Singh)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was lodged before the Lokpal alleging tampering of OMR sheets in a departmental promotion examination conducted by a railway authority in exchange for bribe. The Lokpal directed a preliminary inquiry by the CBI under Section 20(1)(a). After considering the preliminary inquiry report and hearing five named respondent public servants (RPS-1 to RPS-5) under Section 20(3), the Lokpal passed an order dated 21.02.2025 directing a detailed investigation under Section 20(3)(a). The petitioner was not among those five RPSs and was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the investigation, the CBI registered an FIR in which the petitioner was arraigned as RPS-6. Thereafter, the Lokpal passed a second order dated 23.09.2025 under Section 20(7) calling for comments from the concerned public servants, including the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation but challenged the proceedings on the ground of denial of pre-investigation hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not afforded the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 20(3) before the Lokpal directed investigation. The statutory language is peremptory and admits no discretion. The subsequent notice under Section 20(7) cannot cure the initial procedural defect. The impugned orders, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, are vitiated for non-compliance with Section 20(3). The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders with respect to the petitioner, but gave liberty to the Lokpal to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the Lokpal must adhere to the procedural safeguards under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act in circumstances where a person not originally named is subsequently found connected; whether denial of pre-investigation hearing vitiates the proceedings; whether subsequent participation under Section 20(7) cures the defect.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to the public servant under Section 20(3) before directing an investigation is mandatory. Failure to comply renders the order directing investigation and all subsequent proceedings unsustainable in law. The principle that when a statute prescribes a particular mode of doing an act, it must be done in that mode or not at all, applies. Post-investigation hearing under Section 20(7) cannot substitute the mandatory pre-investigation hearing.
Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 21.02.2025 and 23.09.2025 quashed and set aside insofar as they relate to the Petitioner. Liberty to the Lokpal to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended mandatory pre-investigation hearing under Section 20(3) was denied; Respondent argued subsequent hearing cured the defect. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
3. Writ allowed; impugned orders quashed for non-compliance with Section 20(3); Lokpal may proceed afresh in accordance with law. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
4. Is the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act mandatory before directing an investigation?
Yes, the language of Section 20(3) is peremptory; the Lokpal must give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servant before deciding whether a prima facie case exists and directing an investigation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 )
5. Can a subsequent opportunity of hearing under Section 20(7) cure the violation of the mandatory hearing under Section 20(3)?
No, the pre-investigation hearing under Section 20(3) and the post-investigation hearing under Section 20(7) are independent requirements; one cannot substitute the other. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in proceedings before the Lokpal?
Judicial review is supervisory; the court does not sit as an appellate authority over the Lokpal's decisions. Interference is warranted only for jurisdictional error, grave procedural irregularity, or manifest arbitrariness. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, (COI) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking quashing of the Orders dated 21.02.2025 and 23.09.2025, (Impugned Orders) passed by the Respondent- Lokpal of India, (Lokpal), as well as all consequential and further proceedings arising out of Complaint No. 190/2024 initiated against the Petitioner.
2. By the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2025, after considering the Preliminary Inquiry Report, the comments of the Competent Authority, the observations of the Investigating Officer, and the statements of the public servants, the learned Lokpal held that a prima facie case existed warranting a detailed investigation into the alleged manipulation of OMR sheets in favour of certain candidates in the Departmental Promotion Examination conducted by the West Central Railway. Accordingly, the Lokpal directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI) to conduct a deeper probe under Section 20(3)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, (Lokpal Act).
3. Subsequently, upon receipt of the Investigation Report, by Order dated 23.09.2025, the Lokpal called upon the concerned public servants and the Competent Authority to furnish their comments in terms of Section 20(7) of the said Act.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. The Division Railway Manager’s Office, Kota (West Central Railway), conducted a Departmental Promotion Examination for the post of Chief Loco Inspector on 13.05.2023 and 17.05.2023. A total of 96 candidates participated, and the final result was published on 15.09.2023, wherein the Petitioner was declared successful.
5. On 06.09.2024, a complaint was lodged before the learned Lokpal alleging tampering of OMR sheets of the said departmental examination in exchange for Bribe. The complaint was registered as Complaint No. 190/2024.
6. On 20.09.2024, the Full Bench of the learned Lokpal, invoking powers under Section 20(1)(a) of the Lokpal Act, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI) to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry into the allegations. The Preliminary Inquiry Report was submitted on 09.12.2024.
7. Thereafter, the Competent Authority submitted its comments, and upon consideration of the Preliminary Inquiry Report, the learned Lokpal passed an Order dated 15.01.2025, observing that a detailed investigation by the Investigating Agency would be necessary to ascertain the role and responsibility of the officials involved. In terms of Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act, the learned Lokpal issued show cause notices to five officers of the West Central Railway, referred to as RPS-1 to RPS-5, to file written submissions and appear personally or through counsel on 12.02.2025.
8. The RPS-1 to RPS-5 filed their respective written submissions and appeared before the learned Lokpal on 12.02.2025. After considering their oral and written submissions, along with the observations of the Inquiry Officer, the learned Lokpal passed the first Impugned Order dated 21.02.2025. The Petitioner, however, was neither called for participation nor heard by the learned Lokpal prior to the passing of the said Order.
9. By the way of Impugned Order dated 21.02.2025, the learned Lokpal recorded certain critical findings which are as follows:
(i) Discrepancies had been confirmed between the original and carbon copies of OMR sheets as per the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, (CFSL).
(ii) The OMR sheets were in possession of the Evaluating Officer (RPS-2) when tampering was alleged, and
(iii) Telephonic communications existed between the candidate and the Evaluating Officer.
10. On this basis, the learned Lokpal concluded that there was a prima facie case suggesting manipulation of OMR sheets, which might have occurred through acts of commission or omission by one or more public servants. The learned Lokpal, therefore, invoked Section 20(3)(a) of the Lokpal Act and directed the CBI to carry out a detailed investigation. Learned Lokpal further directed
