counsel amounts to direction to the authorities to act against the petitioner, which is unwarranted. Learned counsel submitted that even as per Section 27 of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011, only action which can be taken by the Lokayukta against a public servant is to recommend to the competent authority for initiation of departmental proceeding under the Rules of disciplinary proceeding applicable to such public servant. Learned counsel submitted that without the petitioner being given an opportunity to present his case, especially when on the one hand, time has been given to file reply, simultaneously, the Department has also been given a free hand to proceed departmentally, is not proper. It was submitted that such power does not vest in the Lokayukta. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa reported as (1989) 4 SCC 664 , the relevant being at paragraph-8, that a person should not be a judge of his own cause. He also relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav reported as (2007) 8 SCC 264 , the relevant being at paragraph no. 39, for the proposition that the Lokayukta after enquiry into the allegations, if is satisfied that such allegation is established, shall submit a report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents,
