The Patna High Court held that the bias towards Lokayukta jurisdiction to direct disciplinary proceedings was beyond its statutory powers. Order quashed as untenable.
Order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Lokayukta is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17563 of 2021
======================================================
Naresh Paswan, Son of Munsi Paswan, Resident of Village and P.O. Lodhare, P.S. - Fatehpur, District - Gaya, at present posted as Dy. S.P. PatnaPatna Nagar Mufassil Area, Sped Branch, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N.H. Khan, SC1 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-09-2022
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17563 of 2021 dt.01-09-2022 2/5
"इस बबात कको ध्यबान रखतत हहए कक अब पहरत मबामलको ककी गगंभकीरतबा सत पहकलस महबाकनदतशक, कबहबार स्वयगं अवगत हको चहकत हह इस पबाकधिकबार ककी यह अपतकबा हकोगकी कक न कसरर्फ पश ग ंबाधिकीन पकरवबाद पत्र ममें दकोषकी पबाए गए पबाकधिकबाकरयको एवगं कमर्फचबाकरययों कत कवरुद्ध कनयमबानहसबार अनहशबासकनक करवबाई पपूरकी ककी जबायत बकलक जको मगंतव्य सगंसपूकचत ककयबा गयबा हह उन्हमें पहकलस महख्यबालय दबारबा पतस कवजबापन कत दबारबा रबाज्य कत पमहख समबाचबार पत्रयों (कहगंदकी, अ ग ंतजकी, उदपूर्फ) ममें पकबाकशत करबा कदयबा जबाय और ककी गयकी कबारर्फवबाई सत इस पबाकधिकबार कको अवगत करबा कदयबा जबाय तबाकक उनकबा भकी समकीकबा इस आदतश कत सबाथ लकोकबायहक्त सगंस्थबा कत अगलत वबाकषर्फक पकतवतदन ममें ककयबा जबानबा सगंभव हको सकत। "
that such direction for instituting disciplinary proceedings and reporting the outcome of the same is beyond jurisdiction of the Lokayukt, as has already been settled by a decision of a Coordinate Bench in the Case of Bipin Bihari Singh versus
The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2020(3) P.L.J.R. 10 . Special emphasis has been has been laid by the learned Senior Counsel on paragraphs 21, 25, 27 and 28 of the Judgment which this Court would consider it useful to reproduce:-
“21. On conjoint reading of Sections 28A and 29 of the Act, I have absolutely no hesitation in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17563 of 2021 dt.01-09-2022 3/5
reaching a definite conclusion that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction, acting on a complaint containing grievance of maladministration beyond submitting a report to the competent authority, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, prescribing the manner in which injustice or undue hardship has to be remedied or redressed. It is expected of the competent authority to examine the report and inform the Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. In view of clear language used in Section 28A of the Act, Lokayukta does not have any jurisdiction to issue any direction to the competent authority. The provision clearly stipulates that if, on receipt of report from the competent authority, in response to recommendations made by the Lokayukta, the Lokayukta is dissatisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken, he can make ‘a special report to the Governor of the State and inform the complainant in this regard’. Lokayukta does not have any other jurisdiction at all under the Act when the matter is on the basis of a complaint raising a grievance of maladministration.
25. On the basis of discussions as noted above, it can be easily culled out that Section 27 of the Act is the only provision which enables the institution of Lokayukta to make recommendations to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceeding upon recording a finding which discloses commission of an offence by a public servant punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In case, a recommendation is made by Lokayukta, in exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act, the competent authority is obliged to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent public servant ‘accused of committing the offence under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17563 of 2021 dt.01-09-2022 4/5
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ and forward its comment on the report including action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Chairperson of Lokayukta within six months of initiation of such disciplinary proceeding.
27. If a statutory authority assumes to act in a case over which the law does not give it authority, the proceeding and adjudication will be altogether void. An authority has jurisdiction of any subject matter if, by the law of its organization, it has authority to take cognizance of, try, and determine cases of that description and not otherwise. (See A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations by THOMAS M. COOLEY).
28. Before I conclude, I need to observe that the institution of Lokayukta must remind itself the purpose of its constitution and its own limitations, while exercising its powers and discharging its duties and functions under the Act of 2011. It cannot act beyond the provisions of the Act which has constituted it. The Lokayukta is certainly not a super executive empowered to supervise/ control functionings of the executive and issue commandments to various functionaries asking them to discharge their duties in a particular manner. Further, the Lokayukta does not have any power of judicial review over administrative action, akin to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17563 of 2021 dt.01-09-2022 5/5
been settled, it is difficult for him to make any submission in support of the order passed by the learned Lokayukt impugned in the instant proceedings.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shashank/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 22.09.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to direct initiation of disciplinary proceedings against public servants on a maladministration complaint.
Whether the order of the Lokayukta directing disciplinary action and reporting outcomes was in excess of its statutory jurisdiction.
Whether the fixated coordinates bench decision on Lokayukta powers should be applied to quash the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bipin Bihari Singh versus The State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶17
2020(3) P.L.J.R. 10
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh Paswan
The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police
The Inspector General of Police
The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur
The Lokayukta, Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
