Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Sanjay Karol, CJ, S. Kumar, J
Prem Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC No.18876 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siya Ram Sahi, Shally Kumari
For the Respondents: Kameshwar Kumar, S. K. Ranjan
The Bihar Lokayukta, under the 2011 Act, lacks jurisdictional authority to pass direct orders for recovery of salary or adjudicate service matters. Its functions are limited to investigating corruption and issuing recommendations to the appropriate appointing/disciplinary authorities for action, rather than acting as a substitute for judicial or administrative tribunals.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 - Sections 16, 28A and 38 - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta - Power to order recovery of salary - Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction to pass direct recovery orders against public servants for alleged service irregularities - Role is limited to inquiry into corruption and making recommendations to competent authorities.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Member (Judicial), Lokayukta, Bihar, which directed him to deposit a specific sum of money, failing which he would face criminal prosecution, regarding allegations of payments made to a Siksha Mitra. The petitioner contended that the Lokayukta lacks the statutory power to order recovery or conduct service-related adjudications.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, noting that the institution cannot act as a super-executive or exercise powers not specifically granted by the Act of 2011.
Issues: Whether the Member (Judicial) of the Lokayukta acted beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the recovery of salary payments from a public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Lokayukta is fundamentally an ombudsman institution focused on corruption; service-related disputes fall outside its statutory authority. Consequently, a decision lacking jurisdiction is null and void.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. statutory definitions and jurisdictional limits of the lokayukta act. (Para 10) |
| 2. judicial precedents on the ombudsman's power and limitations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court order quashing the impugned recovery order due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
I.A. No.1 of 2019
This interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in the main writ application, bringing on record the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar, Patna as impugned order apart from order dated 20.08.2018, contained in Annexure 7.
In view of submissions made above, the I.A. No.1 of 2019 stands allowed.
CWJC No.18876 of 2018 :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in quashing the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by Member (Judicial) Lokayukta, Bihar in Case No. 5/Lok (Aarakshi) 25/10 contained in Annexure-7 whereby and where under the petitioner has been coerced to deposit the amount of Rs. 16,63,396.00 failing which he will be subject to the criminal prosecution by the Vigilance contained in Annexure-7.
(ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law as well as on the facts of the case.
On 25.09.2018, the Court 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 Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has only recommended for payment and there is no material to show the petitioner has anyway connived for payment of salary. He has further submitted that he has/had no authority to examine the legality of appointment of Siksha Mitra.
Learned counsel for the State makes a prayer for time to file its counter affidavit.
Let this case be listed after three weeks under the heading “For Orders”.
In the meantime, no coercive steps
