Summary
On a complaint by a Vigilance Cell Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging disproportionate assets of a sitting MLA, the Odisha Lokayukta under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry; the Orissa High Court, without hearing the Lokayukta, set that order aside holding that only the Lokayukta's own inquiry wing could inquire. The Supreme Court allowed the Lokayukta's appeals: the High Court violated natural justice and overlooked that Section 20(1) permits inquiry by the inquiry wing 'or any agency', which under Sections 25 and 28 includes the State Vigilance; no bias arose from the complaint coming from a Vigilance officer who was a mere informant, a different senior officer having conducted the inquiry; and the Lokayukta had locus to appeal under Article 136.
Issues
- Whether the Odisha Lokayukta may entrust a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 to the State Directorate of Vigilance rather than its own inquiry wing.
- Whether a preliminary inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance is vitiated by bias where the complaint originated from an officer of that Directorate.
- Whether the Lokayukta has locus standi to appeal against a High Court order setting aside its direction for a preliminary inquiry.
Provisions considered
- Sections 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 25 and 28, Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014On receipt of a complaint the Lokayukta may order a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any agency to ascertain a prima facie case; Section 25 vests superintendence over investigating agencies including the State Vigilance and Crime Branch, and Section 28 permits use of any officer, organisation or investigating agency of the Government, so entrusting the inquiry to the Directorate of Vigilance was within Section 20(1); the public servant is heard under Sections 20(2) and 20(3) before any further action. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaWhere the Lokayukta's order was the subject of challenge and was set aside, the Lokayukta is a person aggrieved with locus to seek special leave; National Commission for Women and M.S. Kazi are not remotely concerned with such facts. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42)
Held
- The High Court set aside the Lokayukta's order at the first motion stage without affording it an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the audi alteram partem rule, and then dismissed the review by a non-speaking order; the finding that only the inquiry wing could conduct the preliminary inquiry is unsustainable on the plain terms of Section 20(1). (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 31)
- The complainant Deputy Superintendent of Police was an informant and not a person interested, and the inquiry was conducted independently by an Additional Superintendent of Police unconnected with him; on the tests in A.K. Kraipak and Ashok Kumar Yadav, and the Constitution Bench ruling in Mukesh Singh that an informant acting as investigator does not by itself cause bias, the plea of bias is ill-founded. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Although the Lokayukta's further steps during the Supreme Court's stay, including an order under Section 20(3)(a) for investigation and receipt of an investigation report, are not appreciated, the respondents raised no valid objection to them, and the MLA remains at liberty to challenge any later action not in conformity with law. (¶¶ 13, 32, 33)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Orissa High Court judgment dated 03.02.2021 in WP (C) No. 3488 of 2021 and review order dated 05.04.2021 in RVWPET No. 45 of 2021 set aside; the respondent MLA at liberty to initiate proceedings if later action by the Lokayukta is not in conformity with law; pending applications disposed of.