Dismissed

Suresh Ravidas v. the Office of the Lokayukta Jharkhand through Its Deputy Secretary

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2023WPC/6802/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition for quashing an order of the Lokayukta. Relying on a coordinate bench decision that addressed the identical legal issue, the held that no fresh interference was warranted, though the present petitioners were guided by the observations contained in the earlier order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh Ravidas Vs the Office of the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 6802 of 2013 With I. A. No. 3866 of 2015

¶4

Suresh Ravidas …. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Office of the Lokayukta, Jharkhand through its Deputy Secretary, Ranchi.

¶7

…. … Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶10

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ------

¶11

6/ 08.02.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 30.9.2013 passed in Case No. 1/Lok (Forest)/06/12 on the ground that under the provisions of Section 12(3) and Section 12(5)A of the Lokayukta Act, 2001, the Lokayukta has no power to direct the disciplinary authority to take action on the basis of the fact finding report.

¶13

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that similar issue fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6393 of 2013, in which, this Hon’ble Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties at length, disposed of the writ petition on 10.02.2022. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is same and similar to the aforesaid case and as such, the instant writ petition may be decided in terms of the order passed therein.

¶14

In such situation, this Court is of the view that since the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6393 of 2013, vide order dated 10.02.2022, nothing remains to be decided in the instant case afresh. The Coordinate Bench has decided the writ petition in following terms:-

¶15

“11. This Court, has considered the rival submissions on behalf of the parties and gone across the impugned order more particularly the operative part of the order impugned

¶16

¶17

at paragraph-14 thereof and found therefrom that the order has been passed making the recommendation to the competent authority to suspend the petitioner along with other public servants whose names has been referred at paragraph-14 of the impugned order and to initiate departmental proceeding, apart from that, an FIR has also been recommended to be instituted.

¶18

It further appears that after making such recommendation, the stipulation has been made to the effect that such recommendation is being made, so that, in future such occurrence may not be repeated. Further, the order has been passed upon the concerned authority to communicate the Office of the learned Lokayukta about the action taken report within the period of three months.

¶19

Thus, it is evident that the order impugned, initially, contains recommendation of suspending the public servants and initiating the departmental proceeding against them as also instituting an FIR. If the order would have been up to the stage of recommendation, then it would have been said to be in consonance with the provision of Section 12(3) and 12(5)(k) under which the power has been conferred by the Lokayukta to take decision by making recommendation before the competent authority, so that, the recommendation, if required be acted upon.

¶20

But the stipulation as has been made to the effect that such recommendation is being made, so that, such occurrence may not be repeated and the action taken report be also furnished within the period of three months, is changing the nature of recommendation making it as a direction.

¶21

12. Therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, since the provision of Section 12(3) does not confer power upon the Lokayukta to pass such direction commanding upon the disciplinary authority to take action against whom irregularities have been found to be true in course of inquiry.

¶22

13. This Court, relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.263 of 2019, is of the view that the order passed by the Lokayukta (impugned) is required to be modified to the extent that the aforesaid order will be treated to be recommendation.

¶23

14. Therefore, the authority before whom, the finding along with the recommendation has been sent, is directed to act strictly in pursuance to the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2001, so that the purpose for which, the Lokayukta Act, 2001 as has been 7 enacted, be achieved, keeping this into consideration the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to ensure compliance of this order.”

¶24

¶25

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations and also, since the same and similar impugned order has already been decided by this Court, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition afresh. It is made clear that the case of the present petitioners shall be guided with the observations and directions as quoted above of the aforesaid writ petition.

¶26

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The aforesaid interlocutory application also stands accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶28

Suresh Ravidas v. the Office of the Lokayukta Jharkhand through Its Deputy Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh Ravidas v. the Office of the Lokayukta Jharkhand through Its Deputy Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nahun Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivdani Prasad Vs Human Resource Development

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs Industry Department

Samuel Dungdung Vs Police

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Home Department And Ors.

Thakur Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.