Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Sanjay Karol, CJ, S. Kumar, J
Mithilesh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC No.18903 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siya Ram Sahi, Nikesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Shilpa Singh, Abhanjalli
The Lokayukta, under the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011, acts within the scope of anti-corruption investigations and lacks the jurisdiction to issue direct coercive orders for the recovery of salary or interfere in service jurisprudence, which falls under the purview of disciplinary/appointing authorities.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 - Jurisdiction - Competence of Lokayukta to order recovery of salary - Petitioner challenged an order directing recovery of salary paid to an allegedly illegally appointed employee - Court held that the Lokayukta cannot act beyond the statutory provisions and is not a super-executive body empowered to issue coercive orders of recovery without clear jurisdictional authority under the Act - The Lokayukta's primary function is to investigate allegations of corruption and make recommendations, not to issue direct recovery orders equivalent to service adjudication.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a public servant, challenged an order passed by the Member (Judicial) of the Lokayukta, Bihar, which directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- based on allegations regarding the payment of salary to an employee whose appointment was deemed illegal. The petitioner contended that he had no authority to verify the legality of appointments and merely recommended payment.
Findings of Court:
The High Court observed that the impugned order went beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Applying established legal precedents, the court held that any decision passed sans jurisdiction is void ab initio. The Lokayukta cannot function as an appellate authority over administrative service matters or substitute itself for disciplinary authorities.
Issues: Whether the Member (Judicial) of the Lokayukta, Bihar possessed the jurisdiction to order the recovery of salary payment from the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The institution of Lokayukta is specifically oriented towards curbing corruption. It does not possess the power of judicial review or the authority to pass coercive recovery orders in service matters. Its power is limited to making recommendations to competent authorities under sections 28A and 38 of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order directing recovery was quashed, with liberty granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance with law if desired.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limits of lokayukta jurisdiction and powers under the act. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.12.2019 passed by Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar in Case No. 5/LOK(Aarakshi) 25/2010 in the name of Sri Parshuram Singh Vs. Officer In-Charge, Barari, Katihar, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed and coerced to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of District Education Officer, Katihar and all its subsequent orders passed in the aforesaid Case No. 5/ LOK(Aarakshi) 25/2010 in the name of Sri Parshuram Singh Vs. Officer In-Charge, Barari, Katihar, as contained in Annexure-7 which have been communicated from the office of District Magistrate, Katihar and further for also quashing one certificate case bearing No. 02/2020-2021 in the Court of Certificate Officer, Katihar as contained in Annexure-9 for the payment aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per direction of the learned Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar, Patna.
(ii) For issuance of any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled under law as well as on the facts of the case.
While deprecating petitioner’s action in according approval for release of certain payments, as dues payable as salary to one Mukesh Kumar Yadav whose appointment was illegal, Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar directed recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.
Vide order dated 31.01.2022, the instant petition was directed to be tagged with CWJC No. 18876 of 2018 titled as Prem Chandra v. the State of Bihar and Ors. in which this Court on 25.09.2018 had passed the following order:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar by which the Authority of Lokayukta has directed for payment of Rs. 16,63,396/- otherwise petitioner has to face a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mukesh Kumar Yadav appointed was as Sikhsha Mitra for the period of 11 months from 01.07.2003 to 13.05.2004 and posted at Primary School, Dhanua. The period of Sikhsha Mitra was further extended for 11 months, but before its expiry he was made an accused in Barari P.S. Case No. 26 of 2005 for offences under Sections 376 and 314/34 of Indian Penal Code. He remained in Jail from 15.06.2005 to 20.08.2005 and when he was releasedfrom Jail he was again granted third extension for 11 months, but before the expiry of that period Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rule 2006 came into force and under Clause 20 (iii) of the said Rule, the post of Siksha Mitra was automatically converted to the post of Panchayat Teacher and according he became a Panchayat Teacher. He has applied for payment of salary for the period which he has discharged the service. He has recorded his criminal antecedent as well as his detention in Jail and discloses the entire facts for consideration before the DDC who has approved the payment for salary, accordingly, he has been paid salary.
Thereafter, on the complaint made by respondent no.7, Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar has proceeded with the present matter and passed the present order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 16 of the Lokayukta Act, does not empowers the Member (Judicial) Lokayukta for passing the order of recovery of the amount which was paid to Mukesh Kumar Yadav, inasmuch as, he has done nothing but he has only recommended for making a payment.
The Lokayukta can only take cognizance and pass an order in which the person is found associated with the charges of corruption under the Preve
