TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission v. Shiv Shambu 2008 IX AD (Delhi) 289. Accordingly, the name of the Lokayukta, Delhi is deleted from the array of parties in the present case. The cause title of this writ petition will read as Sat Prakash Rana v. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Anr. . Consequently, the other respondents i.e. the Lt. Governor (LG) and Mr. Ramesh Thakur will be Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 3. The proceedings before the Lokayukta are traceable to a complaint dated 7th October 2009 filed before him by Respondent No. 2 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, a Superintending Engineer (SW) of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) working at Sector 4, Booster Pumping Station, R.K. Puram. In his complaint Mr. Thakur stated that on the evening of 1st October 2010 when he was in his office, the Petitioner who is an MLA elected from the Bijwasan Constituency barged into his room at around 5.10 p.m. The complaint alleged that the Petitioner enquired about some petty works of tubewells of his constituency and then without provocation began shouting. Paras 2 to 4 of the complaint narrate what, according to Mr. Thakur, happened thereafter and read as under: 2. I offered him chair. For a minute or two he enquired about s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recommendation to the LG that rules of conduct were required to be framed for all elected representatives for guiding their behaviour in public. The Lokayukta was quoted as saying that this is all the more necessary in our country in the wake of such incidents and the clamour for accountability in society for those in public life or holding public office . The news item also referred to the fact that the Lokayukta had issued notice to the Petitioner. 8. In response to the notice, the Petitioner filed a reply in which he denied the version of Respondent No. 2 of the incident of 1st October 2009. While not disputing that at around 4.45 p.m. he arrived at the office of Respondent No. 2, the petitioner volunteered the information that he was accompanied by Mr. Anil Yadav, Municipal Councillor of his area and Mr. Inder Pal Rana both of whom according to him stayed back in the car. He claims that only he went to meet Respondent No. 2 at his office which was on the first floor of the building. He claims to have found four or five other persons sitting in the office room. He states that he greeted Respondent No. 2 with folded hands . The Petitioner is supposed to have pointed out to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition (Civil) No. 979 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to urge the points raised in the said petition before the Lokayukta. 11. By the impugned order dated 17th February 2010 the Lokayukta has dismissed the said application of the Petitioner. By a separate order of the same date, the Lokayukta set down the procedure that was proposed to be followed in the enquiry proceedings. 12. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner first submits that the Lokayukta had in exercise of his powers under Section 12 DLAU Act already sent a recommendation to the LG on the basis of the complaint dated 7th October 2009 received by him from Respondent No. 2. That recommendation acknowledged the fact that norms were yet to be framed to govern the conduct of MLAs. Even before the LG could respond to such recommendation, the Lokayukta has proceeded with the inquiry, which was unwarranted. He points out that under Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act, an allegation in relation to a public functionary had to be to the effect that he failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Otherwise the LG had no authority over an MLA. Fifthly, as regards the procedure devised by the Lokayukta by the second impugned order dated 17th February 2010, it is submitted that such procedure would compel the Petitioner, who is in the position of an accused in the criminal case, to disclose his defence to the complainant in the course of the cross-examination of such complainant before the Lokayukta. This would violate the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, had such procedure been made known earlier to the Petitioner, he may not even have filed a reply particularly since it was going to cause him severe prejudice. Lastly, it is submitted that there was no 'affirmation' of the complaint by the petitioner and therefore in a strict sense it was not an allegation within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act. Consequently no cognisance of such allegation could have been taken by the Lokayukta. 15. In order to appreciate the above submissions, a reference be made to some of the relevant provisions of the DLAU Act. The long title of the DLAU Act reads: An Act to make provision for the establishment and function ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the public functionaries or the class to which he belongs. 18. The other kinds of allegations include the misuse of official position to gain some favour to oneself or to any other person [Section 2(b)(ii)] being actuated by improper or corrupt motives or personal interest[Section 2(b)(iii)]; allegation of corruption, favour, nepotism or lack of faithfulness [Section 2(b)(iv)] and being in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income [Section 2(b)(v)]. It is immediately apparent that the allegations which can be enquired into by the Lokayukta under the DLAU Act can legitimately form subject matter of proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The DLAU Act clearly envisages that an inquiry by the Lokayukta into an allegation can proceed notwithstanding the pendency of criminal proceedings under the IPC and/or the PC Act arising out of the same allegation. 19. Section 7 (a) of the DLAU Act states that the Lokayukta may proceed to inquire into an allegation made against a public functionary in relation to whom either the President or Lieutenant Governor is the Competent Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure which in his opinion affords an opportunity for corruption or maladministration, to bring it to the notice of the Government and he may suggest such improvement in the said practice or procedure as he may deem fit . 23. A conspectus of the above provisions reveals that the powers of the Lokayukta under the DLAU Act are indeed wide. A Division Bench of this Court in Office of Lokayukta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, while holding that the powers of the Lokayukta are wide, noted that the proceedings under the DLAU were different from civil or criminal proceedings. It said: The nature of proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta are altogether different from a civil or criminal lis. Unlike civil or criminal proceedings, a citizen making allegations against a public functionary may not be in possession of complete facts or documents, unless the allegation arises out of his personal transaction with any public functionary. The powers conferred on the Lokayukta are advisedly very wide. These powers are wider than of any court of law. Notwithstanding remedies to be found in courts of law and in statutory appeals against administrative decisions, there still remains a gap in the mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. (emphasis supplied) 26. The observations in para 22(ii) in Capt. M. Paul Anthony that it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case , were obviously confined to those criminal cases which were of a grave nature and which involved complicated questions of law and facts . Conscious of this qualification, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner sought to urge that the criminal proceedings commencing with the FIR in the present case were of a grave nature and further that it involved complicated questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That by no means implies that the Lokayukta was thereafter denuded of his powers to inquire into the incident which triggered the interim recommendation. The Lokayukta was well within his powers to take cognizance of the incident and inquire into the matter. It is not denied that the Petitioner is a public functionary and is therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Given that the complaint is that the petitioner being an MLA assaulted a public servant, it can hardly be argued that such conduct could not form the subject matter of an allegation within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act. A cognizable non-bailable offence committed by a public functionary like an MLA, punishable under the IPC will certainly be covered by the words failure to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public functionaries . Such an allegation need not await the formulation of norms by the LG for being inquired into by the Lokayukta. Therefore, the contention that till such norms are framed by the LG, the Lokayukta should not proceed with the inquiry, deserves to be rejected. 29. This Court does not find any merit in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
