OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA versus DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 23-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 560
560
OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA
v.
DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No(s).1384-85 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – s.20(1), 25, 28 – Order passed
by the appellant, in exercise of power conferred u/s.20(1), directing
to conduct preliminary inquiry against respondent no.1 – Set aside
by High Court –Held: High Court passed the impugned order setting
aside the order of the appellantwithout affording it an opportunity
of hearing and thus, is in violation of the principles of natural justice
– Even on merits, High Court completely overlooked s.20(1) that
empowers the Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, in its discretion
if intended to proceed and to hold any inquiry, can conduct
preliminary inquiry against a public servant by its wing or any other
agency – So far as the term ‘any agency’ is concerned, it clearly
manifests from s.25 which entrusts the power of superintendence to
the Lokayukta to exercise in such a manner so as to require any
agency, including the State Vigilance and Crime Branch – Also, u/
s.28 for the purpose of conducting any preliminary inquiry or
investigation, it is open for the Lokayukta to utilize the services of
any officer or organization or investigation agency of the
Government – Thus, in the present case, if the appellant conducted
a preliminary inquiry through an agency of the Government of which
reference has been made u/s.28 through the Directorate of Vigilance,
Cuttack, there is no legal infirmity committed by the appellant –
Decision-making process in conducting the preliminary inquiry was
within the scope and ambit of s.20(1)–Judgment of High Court and
the review order are set aside.
Administrative Law– Rule against Bias – Held: Rule against
bias ensures a fair procedure by excluding decision makers who
are tainted by bias – Under the rule, actual bias is disqualifying
even though it is prohibitively difficult to establish – Justice must
not only be done but must also appear to be done – In the present
case, the Officer who submitted the complaint was simply an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
informant and not the person interested, at the same time, preliminary
enquiry was conducted by a different officer not connected with
author of the complaint – Thus, the plea of bias is ill-founded –
Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The aim to the rule of natural justice is to secure
justice or to put it negatively, these rules can operate only in
areas not covered by any law validly made. Before any action
could have been taken by the Directorate of Vigilance in
conducting a preliminary enquiry, a writ petition was filed by
respondent no.1 before the High Court and on the first motion
stage, the High Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing
to the appellant, set aside the order dated 11th December, 2020
passed by the appellant for conducting a preliminary inquiry. The
Division Bench of the High Court has committed a manifest error
in passing of the order impugned while setting aside the order of
the appellant dated 11th December, 2020 to conduct a preliminary
inquiry against respondent no.1 in exercise of powers under
Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 which is in violation of the principles
of natural justice. [Paras 25, 26, 27][572-F-H; 573-B-C]
1.2 Even on merits, the Division Bench has completely
overlooked Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 that empowers the
Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, obviously after recording
satisfaction, in its discretion if intended to proceed and to hold
any inquiry, can conduct either a preliminary inquiry against a
public servant by its inquiry wing or any other agency to ascertain
whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the
matter or hold investigation by any agency or authority
empowered under any law to investigate whether there exists a
prima facie case. So far as the term ‘any agency’ is concerned, it
clearly manifests from Section 25 of Chapter VIII which entrusts
the power of superintendence to the Lokayukta to exercise in
such a manner so as to require any agency, including the State
Vigilance and Crime Branch. [Paras 28, 29][573-D-E]
1.3 At the same time, under Section 28, for the purpose of
conducting any preliminary inquiry or investigation, it is open for
OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA v. DR. PRADEEP
KUMAR PANIGRAHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.