Orissa High Court
Nayak Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh vs Lokayukta Odisha on 14 November, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 35979 of 2023
And
I.A. No. 17387 of 2023
Nayak Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh ..... Petitioner
Mr. B. Pujari, Adv.
Vs.
Lokayukta Odisha, Toshali ..... Opposite Parties
Bhawan, BBSR and others Mr. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
14.11.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the direction given in the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Lokayukta, Odisha in Case No.LY 325/2021 under Annexure-4 series, by which the Lokayukta has directed to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, Smt. Lismita Kanhar, Tankadhar Das, Mahendra Kumar Beuria and Gupteswar Rout for their negligence and dereliction in duty, resulting into illegal felling of 1811 trees in Malchamal Reserve Forest. The Lokayukta further directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and Subash Chandra Khuntia for being negligent in approving the salvaging process and submitting the verification report of the uprooted 600 trees in Chitra Reserve Forest and simultaneously directed the Director, Vigilance, Odisha Cuttack to file charge sheet against the petitioner, Subash Chandra Khuntia and Rashmi Ranjan Swain for offences under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Section 405 and 120 B of the Page 1 of 4 Indian Penal Code for misappropriation of Government money amounting to Rs.13,18,041/- in execution of cattle proof trench work through the investing officer before the Special Court, Vigilance, Koraput at Jeypore under the supervision of Director of Prosecution to Lokayukta, Odisha.
4. Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that on the basis of the allegation made against the petitioner, the Minister has passed an order on 02.02.2022 under Annexure-7, by which it has been indicated that a departmental proceeding has been drawn up against Mrs. Lismita Kanhar, Range Officer vide FE&CC Deptt. Memorandum No.20289 dated 20.11.2021. So far as further action against the petitioner, DFO, Jeypore Forest Division is concerned, the PCCF & HoFF, Odisha has been requested to furnish draft charges against the petitioner, vide Department letter no.855/FE&CC dated 12.01.2022 and action will be taken as deemed fit and proper on receipt of the final recommendations/orders. It is contended that once direction has been given by the Minister to take action against the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Lokayukta Act, the proceeding before the Lokayukta cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as the petitioner is facing the departmental proceeding initiated against him. It is further contended that the vigilance case, which has been directed to be initiated against the petitioner, also cannot be sustained in the eye of law, particularly when a departmental proceeding is directed to be continued against him. On the above two counts, legally it is contended that error has been committed by the Lokayukta while passing the order impugned. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court.
5. In course of hearing, when this Court made a query as to Page 2 of 4 whether Section 15 of the Lokayukta Act bars initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under provisions contained in the Act itself even though the departmental proceeding was directed to be initiated by the Minister, vide order dated 02.02.2022, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed the provisions before this Court time and again, but he could not be able to satisfy the Court that there is bar to initiate a proceeding pursuant to the order passed by the Lokayukta or the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. Rather, after much arguments were advanced and deliberations made, he fairly states that for the selfsame charges departmental proceeding and simultaneously criminal case can be initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the question of law, which has been raised before this Court that the Lokayukta has acted in excess of its jurisdiction to entertain as per the complaint and passed the order impugned, has no legs to stand. At this point of time, it has been brought to our notice that certain errors have been committed in the process of adjudication by the Lokayukta. Meaning thereby, though certain documents were placed before the Lokayukta to draw conclusion for initiation of proceeding, but the same were not served on the petitioner to make rebuttal statement to the same. Thus, it is contended that in absence of any opportunity being given to the petitioner on the basis of the documents on which the order impugned has been passed, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that initiation of proceeding has been caused with four months delay due to laches on the part of the petitioner, but no details charge has been mentioned in the pleadings itself. Therefore, the petitioner may have a case to the extent that he has not provided certain documents, which he could have replied. If such documents are not supplied, then in that case the Lokaykta has committed gross errors Page 3 of 4 and violated the provisions of the principles of natural justice.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.
7. Issue notice in the main case as well as in the interlocutory application.
8. Two extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3 enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.
9. Steps for service of notice on the opposite party no.4 by speed post be taken within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing an early returnable date.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-Nov-2023 16:43:19 Page 4 of 4