http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: C. RANGASWAMAIAH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/07/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    "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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

    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.