http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CH. RAMA RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE LOKAYUKTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   392        1996 SCALE  (5)215

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      These special  leave petitions  arise from the judgment of the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court made on 23.4.1996 in W.P. Nos.8274 and 8715/96. An order was made by the Government on April 21  1936 in  GOMS No.62 granting certain amount to the Director of  Medical Education for expansion be the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two generators were to be  erected in  the hospital. The petitioner was required to submit  the  report  on  the  estimates.  In  furtherance thereof, the  Petitioner submitted  of  the  report  to  the Superintendent Engineer  and tenders  were  called  for.  It would appear that several people had submitted their tenders and the  initial estimate was of Rs.15 lakhs and odd for one set of the generator. Subsequently, it would appear that the estimate was  increased to  Rs.21 lakhs  per  set.  In  that behalf, a  anonymous complaint  came to  be made  before the Lokayukta of  A.P. constituted  under Section  3 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No.II of 1983) (for short,   the    ’Act’).   After    conducting    preliminary investigation, the  Lokayukta came  to  submit  his  interim order dated  March 29,  1996 prohibiting purchase of the two sets and also by interim report dated April 6, 1996 directed the Government  either  to  suspend  the  petitioner  or  to transfer  him   and  to   take   similar   action   on   the Superintendent Engineer  as well.  The  petitioner  came  to challenge the two orders in the above writ petitions. In the writ    petitions,    the    petitioner    challenged    the constitutionality of  Sections 3,  4, 7 and 12 of the Act as ultra vires  Articles 14s  16, 19,  21, 226  and 311  of the Constitution of  India. He  also challenged  the validity of the interim  report.  The  High  Court  dismissed  the  writ petitions upholding  their  validity.  On  the  question  of interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that  the High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the  merits of the interim report. Thus, the petitioner

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

has filed these SLPs.      As  regards   the  constitutionality   of   the   above Provisions, in  fairness, Mr.  A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for  the petitioner,  had not  pressed the same in these SLPs stating that the matters are pending adjudication in  another   appeal.  But  he  seriously  objected  to  the procedure adopted  by the Lokayukta in submitting the report for taking  action against  the petitioner for suspension of him or to transfer him to any other place. According to the learned counsel,  the Lokayukta  has no jurisdiction to take action and  Up-Lokayukta came to be appointed under the Act. We find no force in he contention.      Sub-sections (1)  and (2)  or Section  7 give  power to Lokayuta and  Up-Lokayukta respectively  to investigate into any  action   concerning  persons   respectively   mentioned therein. Sub-section  (3) of  Section   7 enables Lokayukta, notwithstanding the  power conferred  under sub-section  (2) thereof on  the Up-  Lokayukta to  take suo  motu action  in respect of any action contemplated under the Act, Therefore, the only  condition  precedent  required  thereunder  is  to record reasons for initiating suo motu enquiry divesting the power of  the Up-Lokayukta  and  taking  action  under  sub- section (3)  of Section  7 of  the Act. It is next contended that the  petitioner has  not  been  given  any  opportunity before submitting  the report  to  the  Government  and  the action is contrary to Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act. We find no force in the contention.      The Lokayukta  is empowered  under the  Act to  conduct such preliminary verification as he deems fit or proposes to conduct any  investigation under the Act to find whether the allegation  in   the  complaint   prima  facie  justify  for conducting  regular  investigation.  Sub-section  (2)(a)  of Section 10  postulates that  every preliminary  verification referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted in private and in  particular, the  identity of  the complainant and of the  public   servant  affected   by  the  said  preliminary verification shall  not be  disclosed to  the public  or the press whether before or during the preliminary verification, but every investigation referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted  in  public.  In  other  words,  the  statutory provision contemplates  that  while  conducting  preliminary verification of  the  complaint  under  sub-section  (1)  of Section 12,  the investigation  is required  to be  made  in confidentiality and  on satisfying from the investigation of the alleged misconduct, etc. He is empowered to take further action under the Act . He is also empowered under Section 11 to collect  evidence or  have the  investigation done  as  a Civil Court by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act  only when he satisfies that there is an evidence to proceed further  under Section  10(1)(b). At  that stage, he shall afford  ah opportunity  to  the  aggrieved  person  to comment on  such complaint  or the statement and conduct the investigation or  enquiry. He is enjoined to give reasonable opportunity to the public servant. After conducting the said enquiry, if  he finds  that the public servant or the person referred committed misconduct, then he is required to submit the report to the Government as enjoined under Section 12 of the Act. On receipt thereof, under sub-section (3), it shall be lawful  for the  Government to take action as recommended by the Lokayukta.      Considered from the operational conspectus of the above provisions, it would not be necessary to issue any notice or give  opportunity   to  a   public  servant  at  preliminary verification, or  investigation. When  the Lokayukta  or Up- lokayukta,  as   the  case   may  be,   conducts  a  regular

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

investigation into  the complaint,  it would be necessary to give  prior  opportunity  to  the  public  servant  etc.  By implication,   such   opportunity   stands   excluded   when preliminary verification  or investigation is conducted. The object appears  to be  that the preliminary investigation or verification is  required to  be done  in confidentiality to get a  prima facie  evidence so  that the needed evidence or material may  not be got suppressed or destroyed. It is seen from the  report submitted  by the  Lokayukta, that  he  has prima facie  found that  there are  some allegations against the petitioner.  We are  not dealing with the nature of this allegations since  the matters  are yet  to be investigated. Suffice is  to state that the Lokadyukta has power to submit a preliminary  report to take further action so as to enable the Lokayukta to conduct further investigation. The power to submit   final    report   with   recommendation   to   with recommendation to  suspend an  officer or  to  transfer  him pending     further   investigation   or   the   preliminary verification itself.  The object  of the  recommendation  is only to enable smooth enquiry or the investigation conducted without being  hampered with  by the persons concerned or to prevent an  opportunity to  temper with  the  record  or  to destroy the record. Under these circumstances, we think that the Lokayukta  was well  justified in not issuing any notice or giving  any opportunity  to the petitioner at preliminary verification.      The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.