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 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 the Lokayukta to utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government and, in the circumstances, if the appellant in its judicious discretion and on the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct a preliminary inquiry through an agency of the Government of which reference has been made under Section 28 through the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack, there appears no legal infirmity being committed by the appellant in the decision-making process in conducting a preliminary inquiry whichwas within the scope and ambit of Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 and a manifest error was committed by the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside the order of the appellant dated 11th December, 2020 to conduct an inquiry against respondent no.1. [Para 30][573-F-H; 574-A]
1.4 Although this Court may not appreciate the action of the appellant in taking further steps when there was stay of the order impugned passed by this Court, but at the same time, an opportunity was granted to the respondents as well to justify if the action taken by the appellant is not in conformity with the mandate of the Act, 2014, but from the written submissions placed before this Court, no valid objection was found to have been raised by the respondents which may call upon this Court to interfere in furtherance of the action being taken by the appellant after the preliminary inquiry report was submitted pursuant to order dated 11th December, 2020.[Para 33][574-D-F]
1.5 The rule against bias is an essential component of modern administrative law. The 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. The basic principle underlying the time-tested rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appears to be done. In the instant case, the complaint was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Directorate of Vigilance, who is, directly or indirectly, not concerned with the complaint, he can be said to be an informant to the office of the appellant and that apart, a preliminary inquiry was conducted independently by a senior officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, Additional Superintendent of Police who submitted his report of the preliminary inquiry. The question of bias in the instant facts and circumstances does not arise at all. Further, if the order of the appellant directing the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct the preliminary inquiry in exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 has been set aside by the High Court, obviously,the appellant is a person aggrieved and can certainly question the legality/validity of the judgment of the High Court impugned by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.The judgment of the High Court and the review order are set aside.[Paras 35, 37, 42 and 43][575C; 578-D-F; 581-B-D]
Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others 1985 (4) SCC 417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657; Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) 2020 (10) SCC 120 : [2020] 9 SCR 245– followed.
National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and another 2010 (12) SCC 599 : [2010] 10 SCR 905; M.S. Kazi vs. Muslim Education Society and others 2016 (9) SCC 263 : [2016] 4 SCR 80 – held inapplicable.
A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others 1969 (2) SCC 262 : [1970] 1 SCR 457 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.