Lokpal Must Hear Public Servant Before Ordering Investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Lokpal of India, pursuant to its powers under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, cannot order an investigation against a public servant without affording him an opportunity of hearing.A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,“The statutory framework of Section 20 leaves no room for doubt that the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing at the pre-investigation stage as well as at the post-investigation stage is mandatory.”It added, “Section 20(3) explicitly provides that the learned Lokpal “shall”, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant, decide whether a prima facie case exists and thereafter proceed to direct an investigation.”The observation was made while dealing with the plea moved by a public servant, working with the Railways, aggrieved by Lokpal's order calling upon him to furnish comments under Section 20(7), with reference to the purported investigation by the CBI.Briefly put, a complaint was registered with the Lokpal alleging manipulation of OMR sheets in favour of certain candidates in the Departmental Promotion Examination conducted by the West Central Railway.The Lokpal then issued notices to five public servants and afforded them an opportunity of hearing under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act. The petitioner was not one of these five officers.Subsequently, CBI conducted a Preliminary Inquiry and submitted its report recommending prosecution against the Petitioner. This was followed by the Lokpal passing the impugned order, calling upon the Petitioner to furnish his comments under Section 20(7).Petitioner contended that the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, mandates that any public servant against whom the learned Lokpal proposes to proceed must be given a prior opportunity of being heard before directing an investigation.Agreeing, the High Court said it is evident that the Petitioner was not a participant in the proceedings at the stage contemplated under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act. It observed,“The legislative intent is that the prima facie satisfaction necessary for directing an investigation under the Act must be reached only after considering the explanation of the concerned public servant. Omission of this step, especially when it results in the registration of an FIR and the initiation of a criminal investigation, constitutes a violation of the statutory mandate and of the Principles of Natural Justice.”The Court also rejected Lokpal's contention that the Petitioner's subsequent participation in the proceedings, by filing a written representation in response to the notice issued under Section 20(7), operates to cure the earlier procedural defect. It held,“Once the statutory opportunity of hearing contemplated under Section 20(3) is denied, subsequent participation at the postinvestigation stage under Section 20(7) cannot retrospectively validate an order passed without fulfilling the mandatory precondition of hearing.”The Court reasoned that Lokpal Act contains various provisions pertaining to liability of a public servant, which includes measures like transfer, suspension and even attachment of assets. “Having regard to these stringent and penal consequences that may ensue merely upon being named in a complaint, we are of the considered view that there exists an absolute and unqualified necessity for a strict adherence to the procedural and substantive safeguards prescribed under the Statute,” the Court said.Before parting, it added, “The Lokpal, being a quasi-judicial authority vested with powers that carry penal and stigmatic consequences, is duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed by law. It must ensure that its process remains fair, transparent, and consistent with the principles of natural justice.”Appearance: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Nishant Singh and Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Nishant Katneshwar and Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates for LokpalCase title: Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India Through Under SecretaryCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1561Case no.: W.P.(C) 16035/2025Click here to read order

Lokpal Must Hear Public Servant Before Ordering Investigation: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags