Lokayukta's Core Adjudicatory Functions Cannot Be Delegated Even In Complaint Against His Brother: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld an order passed by the Lokayukta in proceedings concerning allegations against the Lokayukta's own brother, holding that the doctrine of necessity would apply where the office of the Lokayukta is a single-member institution and the core adjudicatory functions of the office are not delegable under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. A Single Judge Bench...
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld an order passed by the Lokayukta in proceedings concerning allegations against the Lokayukta's own brother, holding that the doctrine of necessity would apply where the office of the Lokayukta is a single-member institution and the core adjudicatory functions of the office are not delegable under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand. The petitioner had further sought a declaration that the Lokayukta had violated the oath of office under Section 3(2) read with Schedule I of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 by deciding a complaint concerning respondent no.3, who was allegedly his own brother, instead of delegating the matter under Section 19 of the Act.
According to the petitioner, he had earlier served as an Audit Officer in Ranchi University pursuant to an order issued by the Chancellor in 2003. He alleged that after resigning from service due to harassment and humiliation caused by the then Pro Vice-Chancellor, his arrears were not paid despite repeated litigation before the High Court.
The petitioner further alleged that during this period reports emerged regarding large-scale embezzlement of UGC funds in Ranchi University, and after obtaining copies of the FIR and seizure list in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 364 of 2010, he found that respondent no.3 was allegedly connected with the financial irregularities.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Lokayukta seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Accountant General into the alleged embezzlement and the role of respondent no.3.
However, by order dated 30.04.2012, the Lokayukta dismissed the complaint observing that the matter was already under police investigation and that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to direct central agencies such as the CBI or Accountant General to investigate.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 19 read with Section 13(3)(ii) of the Act empowered the Lokayukta to delegate powers and therefore the matter ought to have been delegated since respondent no.3 was the Lokayukta's own brother. It was further argued that refusal to delegate reflected bias and violated the statutory oath of office.
Opposing the plea, counsel appearing for the Lokayukta submitted that the impugned order merely held that the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction to direct central agencies to investigate and did not confer any benefit upon respondent no.3. It was also argued that under Section 13(3) of the Act, the Lokayukta could only utilise officers or agencies of the State Government for investigation, and that too with consent of the State Government.
The Court noted that the alleged fraud was already under investigation by the State Police and that a separate PIL concerning the same allegations had earlier been disposed of after the State informed the Court that investigation had substantially concluded. Examining Sections 13 and 19 of the Act, the Court held that the power of delegation contemplated under Section 19 was limited in nature and did not extend to the Lokayukta's core adjudicatory functions. The Court observed:
“Thus, it is only restricted to the delegation for the purpose of administrative and reducing the work load of the Lokayukta. The main power of the Lokayukta of giving any finding or final evaluation and application of mind on a completed inquiry or investigation report cannot be delegated by the Lokayukta in the light of provision of Section 19 of the Act.”
Relying upon the principle of delegatus non potest delegare, the Court reiterated that statutory powers cannot ordinarily be sub-delegated unless expressly permitted by the statute.
The Bench further observed that since the office of the Lokayukta under the Act was a single-member institution, the doctrine of necessity would apply in such circumstances. The Court observed:
“When such petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Lokayukta and there is no other member to take final decision on the said petition applying the doctrine of necessity the learned Lokayukta has got no option to refuse and he was well under his duty to pass appropriate order…”
The Court further held that the impugned order merely applied the statutory provisions concerning jurisdiction over investigative agencies and did not disclose any personal bias in favour of respondent no.3.
The Bench observed that the order was not in favour of respondent no.3 and merely held that the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction to direct central agencies like the CBI or Accountant General to investigate.
Holding that no illegality or bias had been established, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Satyadeo Roy v. State of Jharkhand.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 656 of 2013
Appearance: Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. Niraj Kr. Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Shubham Mayank for Respondent No. 2. Mr. A.K. Mehta, Mr. Saurabh Swarup, Mr. Shubham Malviya and Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar for the Lokayukta Office.