Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when the order dated 20.02.2015 was passed, respondent no.2 had ordered for holding a detailed inquiry/investigation after giving due notice to the petitioner and directed that the inquiry report be submitted within three months and during the course of investigation, the complainant be also associated so that they can 3 of 13 ***** produce evidence. It is submitted that as per Rule 14 of the Rules, it is incumbent upon respondent no.2 to forward a copy of the complaint to the public functionary concerned in Form VI and to afford an opportunity of hearing to it so that the public functionary concerned may file its comments to such complaint or statement.

"14. (1) Where the Lokayukta decides to conduct any investigation under these Rules, he--
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint or, in the case of any investigation which he proposes to conduct on his own motion, a statement setting out the grounds therefore, to the public functionary concerned and the competent authority in Form VI;
(b) shall afford to the public functionary concerned, an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement; and
(c) may make such orders as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit, (2) Subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005), every such investigation shall be conducted in private and, in particular the identity of the complainant and of the public functionary affected by the investigation shall not be disclosed to the public or the press or published in any manner whether before, during or after the investigation.

Respondent no.2 then, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2015, entrusted the inquiry to respondent no.3. No doubt that in the impugned order dated 20.02.2015, respondent no.2 did not mention the words "preliminary inquiry" and has rather mentioned the words "detailed inquiry" but it was 10 of 13 CWP No.7208 of 2015 [ 11 ] ***** specifically mentioned that the action has been taken while exercising the powers under Rule 7 of the Rules, which deals with the preliminary inquiry. Hence, the words "detailed inquiry" in fact relates to "preliminary inquiry" and for holding the preliminary inquiry, respondent no.2, while exercising his powers under Section 11 of the Act (though wrongly mentioned as Section 14 in the impugned order), appointed respondent no.3. There is no provision in Section 11 of the Act that at the time of holding preliminary inquiry, copy of the complaint has to be given to the public functionary and the principle of natural justice has to be followed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act cannot be read with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act only says that subject to the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the Act wherein the Lokayukta has to complete the inquiry within one year, the Lokayukta can devise his own procedure for conducting inquiry and shall ensure that the principle of natural justice are satisfied and in sequel thereto, Rule 14 prescribes the procedure wherein it is provided that when the Lokayukta decides to conduct an investigation, then he would give a copy of the complaint to the public functionary and also grant opportunity of hearing to the public functionary for the purpose of its comments to the complaint or the statement.