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 delegated under Section 19 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act when no other authority is available to decide the matter.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the office of the Lokayukta, Jharkhand, who has been allowed to assist the Court by order dated 05.08.2022.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that order dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent no.2 was contrary to Section 19 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 read with section 13 (3) (ii) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and consequently prayer has been made for quashing of the said order. Further prayer has been made for further declaration that the respondent no. 2 has violated the oath of office as required under section 3(2) read with Schedule 1 of the Act, by having decided complaint (qua lack of integrity) in discharge of official function by the respondent no.3 who is his own brother, instead of delegation of the power to any other officer under Section 19 of the Act.

3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his retirement the petitioner was appointed as an Audit Officer by Orders of the Hon'ble Chancellor of University vide order no. 1575/GS dt. 1.8.2003. The petitioner continued the said post for certain period but resigned being disgruntled by the hindrances caused and humility made by the then Pro Vice Chancellor on 1-12-08 stating facts in the resignation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner arrears for the service period with the University was not paid and for that purpose he filed a Writ Petition being W.P (C) no. 972/2010 which was disposed off by a Bench of this Court on 5.1.2011 directing the University to settle his claims within a fixed period. He further submits that however no action was taken because the bills were not traceable on the ground that the same were kept under lock and key, was not traceable, because there was an FIR against then Finance Officer Ranchi University and was paid only 25% of the admissible bill. He next submits that the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(S) No. 5044 of 2011 in which this Court had directed filing of Counter Affidavit on 24-9-2012. On query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he is not aware of the fate of that writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the Ranchi University for payment of his arrears and some News reports had come to the effect that an FIR has been lodged for embezzlement of crores of rupees of U.G.C Fund. Even the role of Registrar Ranchi University was doubted but nothing was done against him. There were lot of rumors. Out of curiosity the petitioner also read the news. He next submits that thereafter the petitioner obtained the certified copy of FIR and seizure list of PS Case No. 364/2010 dated 01-6-2010 and found that it was not at all related to non payment of his bill. He submits that after going through the F.I.R. the petitioner came to know that respondent no.3 was almost everywhere in the entire chain of crime and the investigation towards him was because he was signatory to all advice note but was inconclusive for the reasons best known and probably on that pretext the investigation was kept pending. He next submits that therefore the pe