Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Lokayukta Case, Upholds Statutory Power to Direct Preliminary Inquiry by State Agency. The Court Held That Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 Permits the Lokayukta to Order a Preliminary Inquiry by Any Agency, Including the Directorate of Vigilance, to Ascertain a Prima Facie Case, and Judicial Interference at This Stage Was Unwarranted.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a complaint dated 9th December 2020 by a Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging corruption against an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. The Odisha Lokayukta, exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report. The public servant challenged this order before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Division Bench set aside the Lokayukta's order, holding that entrusting the inquiry to the Directorate of Vigilance was not in terms of Section 20(1). The High Court allowed the Lokayukta to conduct the inquiry through its own inquiry wing. The Lokayukta filed a review petition, which was dismissed, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues involved the interpretation of Section 20(1) regarding the Lokayukta's power to order a preliminary inquiry by any agency, and whether the High Court's interference violated principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that Section 20(1) provides an option to use any agency, including the Directorate of Vigilance, as supported by Chapters VII and VIII of the Act, and that no adverse action had been taken at the preliminary stage. The respondents argued that entrusting the inquiry to the same department from which the complaint originated raised bias concerns, and that the High Court had afforded sufficient hearing. The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of the Act, noting that 'any agency' under Section 20(1) includes the State Vigilance, and that the preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain a prima facie case. The court found the High Court's interference premature and in violation of natural justice due to lack of hearing. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, upholding the Lokayukta's direction for a preliminary inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance, and allowed the ongoing processes to proceed.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Lokayukta Powers - Preliminary Inquiry - Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, Section 20(1) - The Lokayukta directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry against a public servant based on a complaint - The High Court set aside this order, holding it was not in conformity with Section 20(1) - The Supreme Court held that Section 20(1) permits the Lokayukta to order a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any agency, and the Directorate of Vigilance qualifies as an agency under the Act - The High Court's interference was premature as no adverse action had been taken (Paras 5, 8, 10).

B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the Lokayukta's order for preliminary inquiry - The Supreme Court found the High Court's interference unjustified at the preliminary inquiry stage, as it was merely to ascertain a prima facie case - Held that judicial review should not stifle statutory processes at initial stages (Paras 5, 10).

C) Procedural Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The appellant argued that the High Court's order violated principles of natural justice by not affording a hearing to the Lokayukta - The Supreme Court noted that the High Court proceeded without issuing notice or allowing written response - This procedural lapse contributed to setting aside the High Court's order (Paras 3, 5, 7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Lokayukta's order directing the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, and whether the order violated principles of natural justice

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 3rd February 2021, upheld the Lokayukta's order directing preliminary inquiry by Directorate of Vigilance, and allowed ongoing processes to proceed

Law Points

  • Principles of natural justice
  • interpretation of statutory provisions
  • scope of judicial review under Article 226
  • powers of Lokayukta under the Odisha Lokayukta Act
  • 2014
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (2) 38

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 62616262 of 2021)

2023-02-23

Rastogi, J.

OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA

DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside Lokayukta's order for preliminary inquiry

Remedy Sought

Appellant seeks setting aside of High Court order and upholding of Lokayukta's order

Filing Reason

High Court interfered with Lokayukta's statutory power under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014

Previous Decisions

High Court set aside Lokayukta's order dated 11th December 2020; review petition dismissed on 5th April 2021

Issues

Interpretation of Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 regarding power to order preliminary inquiry by any agency Whether High Court's interference violated principles of natural justice

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that Section 20(1) permits Lokayukta to order preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any agency, including Directorate of Vigilance Respondent argued that entrusting inquiry to same department as complainant raises bias concerns and High Court afforded sufficient hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 empowers the Lokayukta to order a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any agency, including the Directorate of Vigilance, to ascertain a prima facie case; judicial interference under Article 226 at this preliminary stage is unwarranted and violates principles of natural justice if hearing is not afforded.

Judgment Excerpts

The Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, if it decides to proceed further, may order preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry Wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter Section 20(1) provides an option to the Lokayukta, who, on receipt of a complaint, if order to hold a preliminary inquiry against any public servant, may conduct either by its enquiry wing or by any agency

Procedural History

Complaint dated 9th December 2020; Lokayukta order dated 11th December 2020 directing preliminary inquiry; High Court order dated 3rd February 2021 setting aside Lokayukta order; review petition dismissed on 5th April 2021; Supreme Court appeal filed; notice issued on 23rd April 2021 with stay on impugned order; preliminary inquiry report submitted on 28th May 2021; Lokayukta order under Section 20(3)(a) dated 27th September 2021 directing investigation; investigation report submitted on 7th June 2022

Acts & Sections

  • Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014: Section 20(1), Section 20(2), Section 20(3), Section 25, Section 28, Section 2(d), Section 2(l), Section 2(n)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Lokayukta Case, Upholds Statutory Power to Direct Preliminary Inquiry by State Agency. The Court Held That Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 Permits the Lokayukta to Order a Preliminary Inqui...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Clarifies Regulatory Framework for Aggregator Licensing Under Motor Vehicles Act - Guidelines Not Mandatory for State Governments. The Court held that Central Government's Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 have persuasive value b...