Ch. Rama Rao v. the Lokayukta and Ors.

These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on 23.4.1996 in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715/96. An order was made by the Ciovcrnment on April 2, 1996 in GOMS Nu. 62 granting certain amount to the Director of Medical Education for expan­ sion of the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two generators \Vere to be erecteJ in the hospital. The petitioner \Vas required to sub1nit the report on the estimates. In furtherance thereof1 the petitioner D subn1itted the report to the Superintendent Engineer and tenders \Vere called for. It would appear that several people had submitted their lenders and the initial estimate was of Rs. 15 lakhs aml mid for one sel of the gcnl'.rator. Subsequently, it \Voul<l appear that the esti1nate \Vas increased lo Rs. 21 lakhs per set. In that behalf, a anonymous complaint came to be made before the Lnkayukla of A.P. constituted under Section 3 of the AP. Lokayukta & Cp-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No lI of 1993) (for short, the 'Act'). Aft::!r conducting preli1ninary investigation) the Lokayukta came to submit his interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the two sets and also by interim dated April 6, 1996 directt:d the Government either to suspend the petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action F on the Superintendent Engineer as \Veil. The petitioner came to challenge the l\VO orders in the above \Vrit petitions. Jn the writ petitions) the petitioner challenge the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of Constitution of India. He abo challenged the validity of the interim report. The High Court G dismissed the writ petitions upholding their validity. On the question of interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the interim report. Thus, the petitioner has filed these SLPs. As regards the constitutionality of the above provisions, in fairness, H Mr. A. Subba Ran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had not RAMA RAO v. LOKAYUKTA 669 pressed the rnme in these SLPs stating that the matters are pending A adjudication in another appeal. But he seriously objected to the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta in submitting the report for taking action against the petitioner for suspension of him or to transfer him to any other place. According to the learned counsel, the Lokayukla has no jurisdiction to take action and Up-Lokayukta came to be appointed under the Act. We find no force in the contention. B Sub-sections (l) and (2) of Section 7 give power to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta respectively to investigate into any action concerning per­ sons respectively mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 enables Lokayukta, notwithstanding the power conferred under sub-section (2) C thereof on the Up-Lokayukta tci take suo motu action in respect of any action contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the only condition prece­ dent required thereunder is to record reasons for initiating suo 111otu enquiry divesting the power of the Up-Lokayukta and taking action under Sub-section (3) of the Section 7 of the Act. It is next contended that the D petitioner has not been given any opportunity before submitting the report to the Governn1cnt and the action is contrary to Section 10 read vvith Section 12 of the Act. We find no force in the contention. The Lokayukta is empowered under the Act to conduct such prelimi­ nary verification as he deems fit or proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act to find whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie justify for conducting regular investigation. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 10 postulates that every preliminary verification referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted in private and in particular, the identity of the complainant and of the public servant affected by the said preliminary verification shall not be disclosed to the public or the press whether before or during the preliminary verification, but every investigation referred to in sub-section (l} shall be conducted in public. In other words, the statutory .provision contemplates that while conducting preliminary verification of the complaint under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the investigation is required to be made in confidentiality and on satisfying from the investiga- G lion of the alleged misconduct, etc. He is empowered to take further action under the Act. He is also empowered under Section 11 to collect evidence or have the investigation done as a Civil Court by operation of sub~section (2) of Section 11 of the Act only when he satisfies that there is an evidence to proceed further under Section JO(l)(b). At that stage, he shall afford an H A opporlunily to the aggrieved pnson to comment on such complaint or the statement and conduct the investigation or enquiry. He is enjoined to give reasonable opportunity to the public servant. After conducting the said enquiry, if he finds that the public servant or the person referred com­ mitted misconduct, then he is required to submit the report to the Govern- ment as enjoined under Section 12 of the Act. On receipt thereof, under sub-section (3), it shall be lawful for the Government to take action as recommended by the Lokayukta. Considered from the operational conspectus of the above provisions, it would not be necessary to i&Sue any notice or give opportunity to a public sl:rvant at preliminary verification or investigation. When the Lokayukta or Up-lokayukta, as th!.! case may be, conducts a regular investigation into the complaint, it would he necessary to give prior opportunity to the public servant etc. By implication, such an opportunity stands excluded when preliminary verification or investigation is conducted. The object appears D to be that the preliminary investigation or verification is required to be done in confidentiality to get a p1inw facie evidence so that the needed evidence or material may not be got suppressed or <l(,i.troycd. It is seen from the report submitted by the Lukayukta, that he has p1ima facie found that there are some allegations against the petitioner. We are not dealing \Vith the nature of the allegations since the matters are yet to be inves­ tigated. Suffice is to state that the Lokayukta has power to submit a preliminary report lo take further action so as to enable the Lokayukta to conduct further investigation. The power to submit final report with recom­ mendation to take punitive or penal action includes power to submit interim report with recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer him pending further investigation or the preliminary verification itself. The object of the recommendation is only to enable smooth enquiry or the investigation conducted without being hampered with by the persons con­ cerned or to prevent an opportunity lo temper with the record or tu destroy the record. Under these circumstances, we think that the Lokayukta was well justified in .10t issuing any notice or giving any opportunity to the G petitioner at preliminary verification. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petitions dismissed.