Orissa High Court
Fakira Karna vs Office Of The Hon'Ble Lokayukta on 19 July, 2021
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19306 of 2021
Fakira Karna .... Petitioner
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Office of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha and others
None
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
19.07.2021 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 8th January 2021 passed by the Lokayukta, Odisha (Opposite Party No.1) whereby the case i.e. LY Case No.963 of 2019 has been disposed of.
3. The background facts are that one Dasharath Pradhan (Opposite Party No.3) gave a complaint to the Lokayukta against the Petitioner on 5th December 2019 alleging that the Petitioner, who at the relevant time was an Agriculture Page 1 of 9 // 2 // Overseer posted as in-charge of the Chakuli Agriculture Farm, Bargarh had earned crores of rupees by executing substandard work in the firm.
4. On that complaint, an order was passed on 27th December 2019 by the Lokayukta asking the Director, Vigilance, Cuttack to examine the allegations and submit a response within six weeks. On 25th September 2020, on receipt of the report of the Vigilance, notice was issued by the Lokayukta, inter alia, to the Petitioner and his wife to asking them to file explanations before the next date. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Lokayukta on 8th January, 2021.
5. By this time, certain other developments took place. P.S. Case No.11 dated 6th June 2020 was registered against the Petitioner at the instance of the Sambalpur Vigilance under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act as amended in 2018 as well as Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The second development was that Sambalpur Vigilance File No.14 dated 20th June 2020 was instituted against the Petitioner and an enquiry was being undertaken. Thirdly, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 dated 17th July 2020, was registered against Page 2 of 9 // 3 // the Petitioner under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(b)/ 12 of the PC Act as amended in 2018.
6. The Lokayukta noted that all the three criminal cases were pending investigation. The Lokayukta then noticed that the Petitioner had superannuated with effect from 30th April 2020 and only the provisional pension had been sanctioned. All other terminal benefits had been withheld on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings.
7. After noticing the above facts, the Lokayukta in the impugned order proceeded to observe as under:
"Since on the allegations made in the complaint, criminal cases of corruption have already been registered against Sri Fakira Karna by Sambalpur Vigilance and the same are under active investigation, we find no justification to proceed further with the present complaint. We however recommend the Director of Vigilance to ensure that investigation in Sambalpur Vigilance Case No.11 and 20 of 2020 is completed expeditiously and Sri Fakira Karna is brought to justice for an early trial. We expect that Sambalpur Vigilance File enquiry No.14/2020 is also completed expeditiously and follow-up action is taken on merit of the facts."Page 3 of 9
// 4 //
8. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, takes great exception to the manner of disposal of the complaint by the Lokayukta. According to him, the Lokayukta abdicated its function by not proceeding with the complaint in the manner that it was expected to do under Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 ('Act'). According to him, under the said Act, there had to be an application of mind of the Lokayukta to the report of the Vigilance and thereafter it had to make recommendations on the basis of such report after hearing all the affected parties, which in this case would include the Petitioner. Instead, according to Mr. Acharya, the Lokayukta simply decided to close the complaint without passing appropriate orders thereby putting a seal of approval on the action of the Vigilance Department. In other words, according to Mr. Acharya the Vigilance wing, which was merely an enquiry wing, prevailing over what the Lokayukta was required to do and the entire action against the Petitioner resulting in registration of the P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 dated 17th July 2020 was wholly without the authority of law.
9. With the help of Mr. Acharya, this Court has examined the complaint submitted by Sri Pradhan before the Lokayukta on 5th December 2019 on the basis of which LY Case No.963 of Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 2019 was registered in the Lokayukta. The Court has also carefully perused the communication dated 17th July 2020 addressed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Vigilance, Rourkela Unit, Rourkela to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur, which led to the registration of P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 on that very date.
10. Mr. Acharya insists that the registration of the above P.S. Case No.20 dated 17th July 2020 was only on account of the report prepared by the Vigilance wing of the Lokayukta on the orders of the Lokayukta. a letter dated 25th August 2020 addressed by the Office of the Director, Vigilance, Odisha to the Additional Secretary, Office of the Lokayukta, Odisha, which reads as thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. In continuation to the above-mentioned report dated 22.6.2020, it is further submitted that with regard to the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets by Sri Fakira Karna, In- Charge Chakuli Farm, Bargarh, upon completion of enquiry, a case vide Samabalpur Vigilance PS Case No.20 dtd 17.7.2020 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b)/12 PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 has been registered against Sri Karna and his wife Smt. Santoshini Karna. The case is under investigation. A copy of the FIR is enclosed with for favour of kind perusal."
Page 5 of 9// 6 //
11. This Court is for the reasons that follow unable to accept the submission of Mr. Acharya. When the Lokayukta proceeded to consider the complaint of Opposite Party No.3 for consideration on 8th January 2021, along with the report submitted to it by the Vigilance Wing, it had before it three options as spelt out in Section 20 (3) of the Act which reads as under:
"(3) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokpal shall consider every report received under sub-section (2) from the Inquiry Wing or any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment), and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide whether there exists a prima facie case, and proceed with one or more of the following actions, namely:--
(a) investigation by any agency or the Delhi Special Police Establishment, as the case may be;
(b) initiation of the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servants by the competent authority;
(c) closure of the proceedings against the public servant and to proceed against the complainant under section 46."
12. Thus the first of the three possible courses of action available to the Lokayukta was to order an investigation by Page 6 of 9 // 7 // any agency including the Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 20(3) (a) of the Act. Here the Lokayukta found that there were already three cases registered as P.S. Cases under the PC Act read with the relevant provisions of the IPC against the Petitioner. In those circumstances, it felt that there would be no need to order one more investigation since the criminal investigation would in any way be carried to the logical end.
13. At this juncture it must be noted that the registration of case No.20 of 17th July, 2020 was on the basis of the letter submitted by the Dy SP, Rourkela to the S.P at Sambalpur which makes no reference whatsoever to ether Sri Pradhan's complaint or to the proceedings before the Lokayukta. It is thus entirely possible that independent of the proceedings before the Lokayukta the police in Rourkela and Sambalpur had moved independently to register a case of disproportionate assets against the Petitioner. A criminal case could be registered on the information made available to the police from any source. The letter dated 25th August 2020 of the Vigilance Wing of the Lokayukta does record it as a fact that P.S. Case No.20 of 17th July 2020 had been registered. A careful perusal of that letter does not bear out what is suggested by Mr. Acharya viz., that the registration of that Page 7 of 9 // 8 // case was only because of the orders of the Lokayukta. On the contrary, it is evident that it was based on the note dated 17th July 2020, of the DSP, Vigilance, Rourkela Unit submitted to the SP, Vigilance in Sambalpur.
14. Returning to Section 20 of the Act, the second course of action available to the Lokayukta was to order the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner. Here the Lokayukta noted that there were already disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, who had superannuated on 30th April 2020. Therefore, there was no need for a further probe in that regard. With both options not being feasible, the Lokayukta proceeded to close the proceedings under Section 20(3)(c) of the Act.
15. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the impugned order passed by the Lokayukta closing the complaint against the Petitioner.
16. It is clarified that no observation in the impugned order of the Lokayukta should be construed to be an expression of an opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the Petitioner in the criminal cases which will obviously be decided independently in accordance with law.
Page 8 of 9// 9 //
17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation.
18. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray ) Judge S.K. Guin Page 9 of 9