C. Rangaswamaiah
& Ors Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta & Ors [1998] INSC 340 (21 July 1998)
K. Venkataswami,
M. Jagannadha Rao M.
Jagannadha Rao, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
On the
last day before summer vacation, namely, 14.5.1998, we dismissed these Special
Leave Petition at the stage of admission and stated that we shall pass a
reasoned order later. We are passing that order now.
These
seven special leave petitions have been preferred against the common Judgment
of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos.24215/97, 32653/97, 33388/97,
27056/97, 33852/97 and 4361/98. The judgment, in fact, disposed of several
other writ petitions also and in addition considered the correctness of the
judgment dated 12.8.1997 of a learned single Judge of that Court rendered in
writ Petition No.17819 of 1994 against which writ Appeals Nos. 5081/97 and
5071/97 were respectively preferred by the petitioner therein and the State of Karnataka.
The
point raised in these SLPs is whether the investigation under section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 entrusted by the state of Karnataka to the
police officers of the State having the requisite rank could still be said to
be vitiated because of the fact that the said officers were on deputation to
the police wing of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta at the relevant time? The
facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners before us file writ petitions
contending that the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta could not
have been entrusted with the investigation under section 17 of the prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. In writ petition 17819/94 filed earlier by another
public servant which went before a learned single Judge of that Court, the same
questions were raised. A learned single Judge of that Court while however
rejecting the contention of the Writ Petitioner in writ petition No. 17819/94
that the police officers sent on deputation to the Lok Ayukta to 'assist' the
said authority under section 15(1) of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984
would cease to be police officers for purposes of section 17 of the prevention
of corruption Act, 1988, held that the petition was liable to be partly allowed
on the basis f the following reasoning. The learned Judge held that in view of
section 15(2) of the Lok Ayukta Act which required the staff of the Lok Ayukta
to act without 'fear' in the discharge of their functions and section 15(4) of
the said Act- which vested 'administrative and disciplinary control' of the
staff in the Lok Ayukta, - the independence of the Lok Ayukta as an autonomous
body would be affected if the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta
were entrusted with functions of investigation under section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that, therefore, such officers should
not have been asked to conduct any such investigation. The learned Single
Judge, however, sustained the investigation already made, by invoking the de
facto doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Ranga Raju vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh [1981 (3) SCC 132].
Question
arose as to the position of the post of director General of Police in the Lok Ayukta
created w.e.f. 21.12.92 which post was however not included in the rules
governing the Lok Ayukta and to the effect of another notification dated
22.12.92 issued by the State Government under Section 17 of the prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 designating all the Inspectors of Police, Karnataka Lok Ayukta
to be police officers for purposes of the proviso to section 17 of the said
Act. The learned judge held that the latter notification in so far as it placed
the said officers under the 'general and overall control and supervision' of
the Director General, Bureau of Investigation, Lok Ayukta, Bangalore - rather
than under the Lok Ayukta - as was the position under an earlier notification
dated 2.11.1992 which had vested such control and supervision in the Lok Ayukta
- was bad inasmuch as it jeopardised the independence of the Lok Ayukta,
particularly when the post of Director General of the Bureau of Investigation, Lok
Ayukta was not included among the posts listed in the Karnataka Lok Ayukta
(Cadre, Recruitment and conditions of Service of the Officers and the
Employees) Rules, 1988. The learned Judge also held that the notification dated
12.12.1992 mentioned above designating the inspectors of Police who were on
deputation in the Karnataka Lok Ayukta to be police officers under section 17
of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that the notification dated
26.5.19986 issued under Section 2(s) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973
whereby Offices of the Lok Ayukta throughout the state were declared as Police
stations respect of jurisdiction mentioned against each of them - could not be
of any help to the state inasmuch as those police officers on deputation in the
police wing of the Lok Ayukta could not have been asked to under take any
functions other than those of 'assisting' the Lok Ayukta as specified in
section 15(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1984. In the result, the learned single
Judge directed that, from the stage at which the investigation stood under the
prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as on the date of the Judgement, the Police
wing/Bureau of investigation of the Lok Ayukta 'shall cease' all investigations
but that this would not, however, prevent the said agency from transferring the
cases for further investigation and appropriate action to any other agency
competent to investigate the same. So far as the investigation which was
already made by the police officers of the Bureau was concerned, - though it
was sustained under de facto doctrine, - it was still observed that the same
would be subject to the right of the concerned public servants to prove that
prejudice was caused to them on account of the entrustment of the investigation
to such officers who were on deputation. the writ petition No. 17819 of 1994
was allowed to the extent stated above.
The
said writ petition having been partly allowed as stated above - both the
petitioner therein and the State filed Writ Appeals as stated earlier. Other
officers like the petitioners in these SLPs who filed fresh writ petitions -
had their writ petitions clubbed with the said Writ Appeals.
The
Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as also
the writ Appeal of the writ petitioner in writ petition 17819 of 1994 and
allowed the Writ Appal filed by the State. It held that even after deputation,
there could be a "dual" role on the part of the police officers in
their functions, namely, functions under the Lok Ayukta and functions in
discharge of the duties entrusted to them by the State of Karnataka, under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It, however, held reversing the view of the
learned Single Judge that the notification dated 22.12.1992 issued under
section 17 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 designating all Inspectors
on deputation in the Lok Ayukta as officers competent for purpose of Section 17
of the Act and the notification dated 26.5.1986 issued under section 2(s) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure designating all offices of the Lok Ayukta in the
State as Police Stations - indicated that these police officer's though on
deputation, were entrusted with these powers of investigation, by virtue of
statutory power. The Division Bench further held that though the Director
general of Police newly attached w.e.f. 21.11.92 to the Bureau of Investigation
of Lok Ayukta by way of an administrative order of the Government was to be in
control and supervision of the police staff in the Lok Ayukta and though the
said post of Director General of Police was not - by appropriate amendment of
the recruitment rule of the Lok Ayukta Staff - included in the cadre of posts
in the police wing of the Lok ayukta - still it had to be taken that the said
Director General of Police was under the administrative and disciplinary
control of the Lok Ayukta and therefore the above notification dated 22.12.1992
could not be treated as invalid or as jeopardising the independence of the Lok ayukta.
It also held that the appointment of the said Director General and the
notification placing the police officers of the Lok Ayukta under his control
did not amount to divesting the powers of the Lok ayukta in relation to these
police offences nor to vesting the said powers only in the Director General of
police. It observed that dual functions could be performed by these officers in
relation to the two Acts, namely the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Lok Ayukta
Act and such a situation of dual control could not be said to be alien to
criminal jurisprudence concerning investigation of crimes.
In
other words. These officers who were of the requisite rank as per section 17 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not be said to be incompetent to
investigate into offences assigned to them under that Act by the competent
authority by virtue of statutory powers under Section 17 thereof or to the
extent not excluded by the Lok Ayukta. The Division Bench, therefore, held that
the further investigation against the petitioners could be continued through
the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta.
We
have also to also to refer to an office Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued by the
Lok Ayukta after the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Lok ayukta
issued office memorandum dated 2.9.1997 to the effect that in view of the
judgment in the writ petition, all police officers in charge of police stations
of the Lok ayukta, could take cognizance and investigate offences punishable
under the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and the IPC but that keeping in
view section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they were to obtain
necessary orders from the respective Superintendents of Police, attached to the
Lok ayukta - who in their turn would report to the Lok Ayukta a or Upa Lok Ayukta,
as the case may be - with reference to their respective jurisdictions through
the Inspector General of Police (except in trap cases). The memorandum stated
that the report of the police officers should be submitted to the Lok- Ayukta
or Upa Lok Ayukta, as the case may be through the IGP immediately after such
action was taken in the proceedings. It further stated that the IGP would place
the FIR, the evidence collected and the final investigation report before the Lok
Ayukta and that before filing charge sheet for prosecution or filing closure
reports, orders of the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta - as the case may be -
would have to be obtained. The validity of this Memorandum, therefore, fell for
consideration before the Division Bench in the light of the other findings
given by the Division Bench reversing the opinion of the learned single Judge.
In
regard to the above Memorandum of the Lok Ayukta dated 2.9.97, the Division
Bench held that it was issued by the Lok Ayukta only in view of the Judgment of
the learned Single Judge and Govt. notification dated 20.8.97, to overcome the
difficulties faced by the police officers in the Lok ayukta. The office
Memorandum purported to have been issued under section 15(4) of the karnataka Lok
Ayukta Act.
The
Bench held that the Lok ayukta had no authority statutorily delegated to it to
issue such an office Memorandum. The Bench held that, in the light of the views
expressed in the judgment of the Division Bench that the Director General
attached to the Lok Ayukta was to be treated as under the administrative
control of the Lok Ayukta, the memorandum had become `redundant' and
'unworkable.' Even otherwise the Court would have no hesitation to set aside
the same on ground of want of jurisdiction or as being in excess of
jurisdiction of the Lok ayukta. The Division Bench, however, clarified that the
setting aside of the said Memorandum did not mean that the Lok Ayukta had no
administrative and disciplinary control over the police officers on deputation.
It held that in case the Lok ayukta directed a police officer 'not to proceed
in relation to a case', such a police officer could not venture to initiate
investigation. A direction not to go ahead with entire duties entrusted to him
by the Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be given
by the Lok ayukta only under specified and exceptional circumstances such as -
when there was "excess loaded of work" in the Lok Ayukta which might
not consequently leave adequate time for investigation of offences being
investigated by the Lok Ayukta. These exceptions, the Bench held, were not
exhaustive and there could well be other situations where the Lok Ayukta could
direct its officers not to take up the extra work entrusted to them by the
State under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Division Bench thus
allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the State and dismissed the Writ Appeal of the
petitioner in W.P. 17819 of 1994 and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners before us.
It was
contended in these special leave petitions before us by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners Sri Gopal Subramanyam that the Division Bench erred
in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, that the entire
investigation under the Prevention of corruption Act so far conducted by the
police officers of the Lok Ayukta must be treated as illegal and that the
entrustment of the remaining investigation to these officers could not be
permitted. In other words, it was contended that the entire proceedings must be
quashed.
Before
giving our reasons for dismissal of these special leave petitions we may state
that we are here conscious of the fact that writ petitioner in writ petition
No. 17819/1994 out of which the two writ appeals arose before the High Court is
not before us. But inasmuch as the fresh writ petitions filed by the
petitioners who are now before us have been disposed of by a common judgment alongwith
writ appeals, it has not become possible to avoid consideration of the reasons
given by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 17819/1994.
The
following points arise for consideration:
(1)
Was it permissible for the State Government to create the post of Director
General of Police, Lok ayukta by way of an administrative order of 21.12.1992
though the said post was not included in the relevant rules of recruitment of
the staff of the Lok Ayukta? If permissible, can it be said that the said
officer was independent and outside the administrative and disciplinary control
of the Lok Ayukta?
(2) Is
the entrustment of functions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by
the Government to the police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta without
jurisdiction?
(3) In
what manner can the provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and section 15 of the Karnataka Lok ayukta Act, 1984 be harmonised?
(4) Is
further investigation in the present cases to be continued by the police
officers on disputation to the Lok Ayukta?
Point
1:- At the outset,
it is necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and of the Karnataka State Lok ayukta Act, 1984 in so far
as they are relevant and to certain notifications adverted to by the parties
before the High Court.
Section
17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 states that notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), no
police officer below the rank (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, of an Inspector of Police, (b) in the metropolitan area of
Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan areas
notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973(Act 2 of 1924), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police
or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall, investigate any offence
punishable under that Act without the order of a metropolitan Magistrate or a
Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest without a
warrant. The first proviso to Section 17 states that when a police officer of a
rank below the rank of an Inspector of police can take similar action. The
second proviso states that if the offence is one under clause (e) of
sub-section (1) of section 13 namely, dealing with possession of assets disproportionate
to the know sources of income of the public servant, then such an offence shall
not be investigated without the orders of a police officer not below the rank
of Superintendent of Police.
We
shall next refer to Section 15 of the State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984, which deals
with the mode of recruitment of staff of the Lok Ayukta. Section 15 of the Act
reads as follows:
"Section
15: Staff of Lok Ayukta. etc.:
(1)
There shall be such officers and employees as may be prescribed to assist the Lok
Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta in the discharge of their
functions under this Act.
(2)
The categories recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and
employees referred to in sub-section (1) including special conditions as may be
necessary for enabling them to act without fear in the discharge of their
functions, shall be such as may be prescribed in consultation with the Lok Ayukta.
(3)
Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Lok Ayukta or an Upa
Lok Ayukta may, for the purpose of conducting investigations under this Act utilise
the services of (a) any officer or investigating agency of the State
Government; or (aa) any officer or investigating agency of the Central
Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government; or (b) any
other agency.
(4)
The officers and other employees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be under
the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta: provided that
when Lok Ayukta is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness
or any other cause, the Upa Lok Ayukta or if there are more than one upa Lok Ayukta
or if there are more than one Upa Lok Ayukta, the senior among them may
discharge the functions of the Lok Ayukta under this sub-section".
It
will be noticed from the above provisions that the staff of the Lok Ayukta is
to "assist" the Lok ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta in the discharge of
their functions as stated in section 15(1) and that the staff is to function
without "any fear" in the discharge of their duties as stated in
section 15(2). The staff is to be under the administrative and disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta as stated in section 15(4).
Under
the rule making power conferred on it by section 23 of the Lok Ayukta Act,
1984, the State of Karnataka has framed rules for recruitment of
the staff in the Lok Aukta called the Karnataka Lok Ayukta (Cadres, Recruitment
and conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988. Rule 3
thereof provides for the strength and composition of the staff of the Lok Ayukta
and states that the staff shall be recruited as detailed in the First Schedule
of the Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes the method of recruitment and the
minimum qualifications therefor. The first Schedule divides the staff into
three wings"
(i)
Administrative and Enquiry Wing
(ii)
Police Wing and
(iii)
General Wing.
The
number of posts in each wing is also specified. So far as the Police Wing is
concerned, it is to comprise of one IGP, one Dy. IG, three Superintendents of
Police, three non-IPS Superintendents of Police, eleven Dy. Superintendents of
Police, apart from 24 Inspectors of police and an equal number of
Sub-Inspectors of police besides Head Constables and Drivers, etc. The Second
Schedule to the Rules provides for the method of recruitment, according to
which so far as staff in the Police Wing of the Lok Ayukta is concerned, it has
to be appointed by deputation from the karnataka State Police Service. The only condition
is that the Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police
(except the Superintendents of Police) have to be IPS Officers.
We
shall next refer to the relevant notifications which were referred to in the
High Court. We have a notification dated 22.12.92 issued by the State Government
under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (issued in
modification of an earlier notification dated 2.11.1992) designating all
Inspectors of Police on deputation with the Karnataka Lok Ayukta to be police
officers for the purposes of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 but subject to the "general and overall control and supervision"
of the Director General, Bureau of Investigation, Lok ayukta, Bangalore. Under
the previous notification dated 2.11.1992. the said control and supervision of
the police officers was vested with the Lok Ayukta. On 21.12.1992, the
Government of karnataka created a post of Director General, Bureau of
Investigation, Lok Ayukta, in the rank of an Additional Director General of
Police and then issued the notification dated 22.12.1992 above referred to
vesting the control of the police staff in the Lok Ayukta with the General of
Police. There is also a notification dated 26.5.1986 issued under section 2(s)
of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 declaring offices of the Lok Ayukta as
police stations and authorising Inspectors of Police therein to conduct
investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The
above are the relevant provisions of the Central and State Acts, the rules and
notifications.
We may
first deal with the crucial question as to whether the Director General of
Police in the Office of the Lok Ayukta who is to supervise the work of the
police officers on deputation in the Lok Ayukta is independent of the Lok Ayukta
and is out side the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta.
We agree with the Division Bench when it took the view, - differing from the
learned Single Judge, - that though the newly created post of Director General
of Police in the Office of the Lok Ayukta was created on 21.12.1992 by an
administrative order and the relevant recruitment rules of the staff of the Lok
Ayukta were not amended to bring the said post into the cadre under the Lok Ayukta,
still the said post created in the Lok Ayukta, still the said post created in
the Lok Ayukta police Wing was intended to be and must be treated as part of
the staff of Lok Ayukta in the police wing. It is well-settled that
administrative orders even created posts can be issued so long as they are not inconsistent
with rules, that is to say, as long as there is no prohibition in the statutory
rules for creation of such posts. The learned single Judge's view that the
independence of the Lok Ayukta was under threat was mainly based upon his
decision that the post of the Director General created on 21.12.1992 was
outside the control of the Lok Ayukta. This view, in our opinion, is not
correct for the reasons mentioned above.
Therefore,
while it is true that as per the notification dated 21.11.1992 issued by the
Government, the police wing in the Lok Ayukta is to be under the general and
overall control of the said Director General of police, still, in our opinion,
the said staff and, for that matter, the Director General himself are under the
administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta. This result even if
it is not achieved by the express language of section 15(4) is achieved by the
very fact that the Director General's post is created in the office of the Lok ayukta.
By
creating the said post of Director General of Police in the Office of the Lok Ayukta
and keeping the police wing therein under control and supervision of the said
Director General, the State of Karnataka, in our opinion, did not intend to
remove the police wing or the said Director General from the administrative and
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta nor did the State intend to
interfere with the independent functioning of the Lok Ayukta and its police
staff. The modification of the earlier notification dated 2.11.1992 was, in our
opinion, necessitated on account of the creation of the post of the Director
General in the office of the Lok Ayukta. Nor was the notification intended to
divest the Lok Ayukta of his powers and to vest the said powers only in the
Director General. For the aforesaid reasons, the Memorandum dated 2.9.1997
issued by the Lok Ayukta after the judgment of the learned Single Judge has
become redundant as held by the Division Bench. Thus the main argument relating
to the threat to the independence of the Lok Ayukta which appealed to the
learned Single Judge stands rejected.
Point
2:
The
next question is whether when the State Government had sent the police officers
on deputation to the Lok Ayukta, it was permissible for the Government to
entrust them with additional duties under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988? The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are one, as
already stated, in accepting that the police officers of the State on
deputation continue to remain as public servants in the service of the State
Government, as along as they are not absorbed in the Lok Ayukta. This legal
position is absolutely unassailable because the State of Karnataka has merely lent the services of
these officers to the Lok Ayukta and the officers continue to be employees of
the State. Inspite of the deputation of officers with the Lok Ayukta the
relationship of master and servant between the State of Karnataka and these officers does not stand
terminated (State of Punjab vs. Inder Singh 1997 (6) SCC 372).
There
is no dispute that though these officers are on deputation they are otherwise
of the requisite rank as contemplated by section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and that other formalities under that Act are satisfied
for entrustment of duties under the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
Question is whether these police officers of the State can be invested with
powers of investigation under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 by the Stated under its statutory powers traceable to the same section? It
is true that normally, in respect of officers sent on deputation by the State
to another authority, the lending authority should not, after deputation of its
officers, entrust extra duties concerning the said lending authority to such
officers without the consent of the borrowing authority. If, however, such
action is taken by the landing authority by virtue of statutory powers and such
a course is not objected to by the borrowing authority, can it be said that the
entrustment is without jurisdiction? In our opinion, from a jurisdictional
angle, the entrustment being under statutory powers of the State traceable to
section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the same can not be said
to be outside the jurisdiction of the State Government. May be, if it is done
without consulting the Lok Ayukta and obtaining its consent, it can only be
treated as an issue between the State and the Lok Ayukta and is none of the
concern of those public servants against whom these police officers on
deputation are conducting the investigation. Such entrustment of duties has
statutory backing and obviously also the tacit approval of the Lok Ayukta. Once
there is such tacit approval of the Lok Ayukta, the writ petitioners can not
have any grievance that the Lok Ayukta ought not to have permitted such a
course.
Point
3 and 4:
As
stated by the Division Bench, situations might arise where the Government might
like to entrust such duties to the police officers on deputation but the Lok Ayukta
might feel that such entrustment would affect the independent working of the Lok
Ayukta or add unreasonably to the workload of the officers on deputation in the
office of the Lok Ayukta. The question is as to how to harmonise the powers of
the Government under the Central Act and of the Lok Ayukta under the State Act.
Points 3 and 4 deal with the balancing of the respective powers of the State
Government and the Lok Ayukta.
In our
view, if the State Government wants to entrust such extra work to the officers
on deputation with the Lok Ayukta, if can certainly inform the Lok Ayukta of
its desire to do so. If the Lok Ayukta agrees to such entrustment, there will
be no problem. But if for good reasons the Lok Ayukta thinks that such
entrustment of work by the State Government is likely to affect its functioning
or is likely to affect its independence, it can certainly inform the State
Government accordingly. In case the State Government does not accept the view
point of the Lok Ayukta, then it will be open to the Lok Ayukta, - having
regard to the need to preserve its independence and effective functioning to
take action under section 15(4) {read with section 15(2)} and direct that these
officers on deputation in its police wing will not take up any such work
entrusted to them by the State Government. Of course, it is expected that the
State Government and the Lok Ayukta will avoid any such unpleasant situations
but will act reasonably in their respective spheres.
But
once the Lok Ayukta has, as in the present case, not objected, - at the
threshold - to such entrustment of work by the State Government to the officers
on deputation, then it will not normally be reasonable for the Lok Ayukta to
object to said entrustment when these officers are half- way through the extra
work. Such withdrawal by the Lok Ayukta at a latter stage might create various
administrative problems and will only help the public servants against whom
investigation is being done to raise unnecessary legal issues. Of course, in
the present case, it is not the Lok Ayukta which has raised any objection but
it is he public servants - against whom the investigation is going on - who
have raised objections. As already stated, they cannot raise objections if the Lok
Ayukta has not raised any objections at the threshold. The above, in our view,
will take care of the independence and effective working of the Lok Ayukta and
at the same time will enable the State of Karnataka if need be, to exercise its
statutory powers under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In the
matters before us, as already stated, there has been no objection by the Lok Ayukta
at the initial stage of the entrustment of work under section 17 of the Central
Act to these police officers on deputation. It is therefore not possible to
interdict the further investigation by these officers at this stage at the
instance of the public servants. As stated above, if no objection has come from
the Lok Ayukta at the time of initial entrustment, it is certainly not
permissible for the public servants against whom the investigation is being
done, to raise objection.
The
Division Bench was right in holding that the Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued
by the Lok Ayukta is, in fact, purely consequential to the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and in declaring the same to be invalid and also
redundant.
We
may, however, add that if instead of deputation of police officers from the
Government, any other solution can be found, that is a matter to be decided
amicably between the State Government and the Lok Ayukta, - keeping in view the
independence of the Lok Ayukta and its effective functioning as matters of
utmost importance.
Before
parting with the case, we may reiterate what this Court state recently in
connection with the independence of the Lok Ayukta in a case arising under the
corresponding statute from Andhra Pradesh, in Institute of A.P. Lok Ayukta etc.
vs. t. P asubba Reddy [1997 (9) SCC 42 (at page 42):
"The
legislative intent behind the enactment is to see that the public servants
covered by the sweep of the Act should be answerable for their actions as such
to the Lokayukta who is to be a Judge or a retired Chief Justice of the High
court and in appropriate cases to the Upa-Lokayukta who is a District Judge of
Grade I as recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court, so that these
statutory authorities can work as real ombudsmen for ensuring that people's
faith in the working of these public servants is not shaken. The statutory
authorities are meant to cater to the need of the public at large with a view
to seeing that public confidence in the working of public bodies remains
intact. When such authorities consist of high judicial dignitaries it would be
obvious that such authorities should be a med with appropriate powers and sanctions
so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions. The
decisions of Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta, therefore, must be capable of being
fully implemented.
These
authorities should not be reduced to mere paper tigers but must be armed with
proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are not wasted and
their reports are not shelved by the disciplinary authorities concerned."
For the aforesaid reasons, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
Back