Order on Board

15.04.2024

1. This Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.4 i.e. order dated 12/10/2017 (Annexure-P/1) bearing No.3374/CGLA/Comp./30/2015; order dated 26/8/2017 (Annexure-P/2) bearing No.12760/CGLA/Comp./30/2015; and the order dated 9/5/2017 (Annexure-P/3) bearing No.1550/CGLA/Comp.30/2015.

ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to close the entire proceedings initiated by it against the petitioner in case No.30/2015 pursuant to the endorsement of letter dated 9/2/2015, as the same are not at all maintainable before the respondent No.4 in view of the provisions contained under the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 and the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog (Investigation) Rules, 2002.

iii. That, this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

iv. Cost of petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

v. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

vi. This Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to quash the recommendation dated 30/10/2017 (Annexure P 3A) passed by respondent No.4.

2. The summary of the case is that on 09.02.2015, Complainant namely Shri Manik Mehta has sent a complaint along with an affidavit to Hon’ble the Chief Minister and other State functionaries and also endorsed a copy to Lok Aayog for conducting an impartial enquiry against the Petitioner herein, who was posted as Additional Director General of Police, EOW & ACB at the relevant time. Respondent No.4, on receiving such complaint, registered Case No.30/2015 in exercise of powers vested under Section 6 of The Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) and a factual report was called upon from the State Government. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the Petitioner, being a public servant, has misused the powers of his post and has accumulated disproportionate property from his known source of income. On the basis of such complaint, Lok Aayog was prima facie of the opinion of taking cognizance of the case of committing misconduct as per Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002 wherein, commission of misconduct has been defined. Thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, his statement has been recorded. The Additional Superintendent of Police posted in the Lok Aayog has shown his inability to make investigation against such an Officer of higher rank with regard to his assets, therefore, in such circumstances, Lok Aayog has taken a view that the matter could be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation for which, a communication has been sent vide letter dated 22.04.2017 for obtaining the view of the State and in turn, the State has suggested that the Lok Aayog should first try to investigate the case. The Petitioner has also raised an issue about the jurisdiction of the Lok Aayog to decide the complaint vide his application dated 19.06.2017, which was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2017 and the same has not been challenged by the Petitioner. The matter was listed on 30.10.2017 on which date, the Petitioner did not appear and in such circumstances, the Lok Aayog has passed an order that investigation of the matter should be conducted by any Central Agency like CBI etc and accordingly made recommendation to Hon’ble the Chief Minister of the State. The Petitioner has obtained an interim order by this Court against the order by which, the Lok Aayog has issued notice to the State Government to seek information whether the matter may be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Hence, this Petition.

3. Shri Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the procedure for taking cognizance by Lok Aayog has been defined