In a writ petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a declaration that an order dated 30-04-2012 passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand was contrary to Section 19 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (Act) read with Section 13(3)(ii) of the Act as well as quashing of the same, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
By the present petition, a prayer was also made to seek declaration that the Lokayukta had violated the oath of office as required under Section 3(2) read with Schedule I of the Act, by deciding a complaint in discharge of official function by his own brother (respondent 3), instead of delegating the power to any other officer under Section 19 of the Act.
The petitioner was appointed as an Audit Officer by order of the Chancellor of Ranchi University in 2003. He continued at the said post for a certain period but resigned after being disappointed by the hindrances and humility caused by the then Pro Vice Chancellor on 01-12-2008. Since arrears were not paid to him for the service period, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court on 05-01-2011 directing the University to settle his claims within a fixed period. However, the petitioner asserted that no action was taken since the bills were not traceable as there was an FIR against the Finance Officer and he was paid only 25% of the admissible bill.
Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pursue the matter with the University and came across news that an FIR had been lodged regarding embezzlement of crores of rupees from the UGC fund. After going through the contents of the FIR, the petitioner got to know that respondent 3 was involved in the entire chain of the crime as he was signatory to all advice notes.
Hence, the petitioner approached the office of the Lokayukta requesting an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Accountant General against respondent 3. After some time, the petitioner came to know that his petition was dismissed by an order dated 30-04-2012, holding that the matter was not in the Lokayukta’s purview since both agencies were of the Central Government.
The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), praying for an investigation against respondent 3, in which an order was passed and the State had submitted that the investigation was almost complete. It was found that the Sae police had already done the investigation for the alleged fraud.
Further, the Court stated that in view of Section 8(1)(a) read with the Third Schedule (b) of the Act, it was clear that if the crime was already investigated into, the Lokayukta was not to investigate. It was noted that since the police had already investigated the matter when the impugned order was passed, the Lokayukta had rightly passed the said order. The Court also stated that as per Section 13(3) of the Act, the Lokayukta was only required to take assistance of the State Officials and agencies that too with the State Government’s consent. Hence, it was held that the Lokayukta was not competent to issue directions to the CBI for taking up the investigation and no illegality was found in the impugned order.
The Court perused Section 19 of the Act and stated that the main power of the Lokayukta of giving any findings, or final evaluation, or application of mind on an inquiry or investigation report could not be delegated by the Lokayukta as the said provision is only restricted to administrative delegation for reducing the Lokayukta’s workload. It was said that unless the legislature permits sub-delegation in cases concerning even administrative powers, no sub-delegation can be inferred.
Referring to the doctrine of necessity, the Court stated that law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity, which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. It was said that there was no other member to take a final decision on the petition filed as Lokayukta’s office is a single-member institution, and hence, applying the said doctrined, the Lokayukta was well under his duty to pass an appropriate order.
The Court stated that no bias reflected in the impugned order and held that the Lokayukta had rightly passed the order as per the statute. Thus, it was held that no declaratory writ could be passed in the petition and the same was dismissed.
