Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. By the impugned order dated 17th February 2010 the Lokayukta has dismissed the said application of the Petitioner. By a separate order of the same date, the Lokayukta set down the procedure that was proposed to be followed in the enquiry proceedings.

12. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner first submits that the Lokayukta had in exercise of his powers under Section 12 DLAU Act already sent a recommendation to the LG on the basis of the complaint dated 7th October 2009 received by him from Respondent No.2. That recommendation acknowledged the fact that norms were yet to be framed to govern the conduct of MLAs. Even before the LG could respond to such recommendation, the Lokayukta has proceeded with the inquiry, which was unwarranted. He points out that under Section 2 (b) (i) of the DLAU Act, an allegation in relation to a public functionary had to be to the effect that he failed to act "in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by the public functionaries or the class to which he belongs." If no such norms have in fact been laid down, the very basis of taking cognizance of the complaint was illegal and erroneous. While submitting that the Petitioner is not questioning the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to act on complaints against public functionaries in general, it is submitted that in the facts of the present case, when the Lokayukta has made an interim recommendation to the LG to devise norms, he should await for a response from LG before further proceeding in the matter.

15. In order to appreciate the above submissions, a reference be made to some of the relevant provisions of the DLAU Act. The long title of the DLAU Act reads:

"An Act to make provision for the establishment and functioning of the Institution of Lokayukata to inquire into the allegations against public functionaries in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith."

16. Who is a "public functionary" is defined under Section 2 (m) DLAU Act. It includes the Chief Minister or a Minister; an MLA and a host of other officials of a government company, a local authority, a Corporation etc. In this context, the following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the Office of Lokayukta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2009 (160) DLT 1 (DB) are relevant:

"2. (b) "allegation" in relation to a public functionary means by affirmation that such public functionary in capacity as such-

(i) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by the public functionaries or the class to which he belongs."

18. The other kinds of allegations include the misuse of official position to gain some favour to oneself or to any other person [Section 2(b)(ii)] being actuated by improper or corrupt motives or personal interest[Section 2(b)(iii)]; allegation of corruption, favour, nepotism or lack of faithfulness [Section 2(b)(iv)] and being in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income [Section 2(b)(v)]. It is immediately apparent that the allegations which can be enquired into by the Lokayukta under the DLAU Act can legitimately form subject matter of proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The DLAU Act clearly envisages that an inquiry by the Lokayukta into an allegation can proceed notwithstanding the pendency of criminal proceedings under the IPC and/or the PC Act arising out of the same allegation.

28. As regards the Petitioner's contention that the Lokayukta having made an interim recommendation to the LG should await the response of the LG before proceeding further, this Court would like to observe that given the scheme of the DLAU Act, it is possible for the Lokayukta to make a series of recommendations in relation to matters that come to his knowledge. From the copy of the news item dated 20th October 2009 which has been enclosed with the present petition, it appears that the Lokayukta did make an interim recommendation to the LG about the need to frame norms to govern the conduct of the MLAs. That by no means implies that the Lokayukta was thereafter denuded of his powers to inquire into the incident which triggered the interim recommendation. The Lokayukta was well within his powers to take cognizance of the incident and inquire into the matter. It is not denied that the Petitioner is a public functionary and is therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Given that the complaint is that the petitioner being an MLA assaulted a public servant, it can hardly be argued that such conduct could not form the subject matter of an "allegation" within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act. A cognizable non-bailable offence committed by a public functionary like an MLA, punishable under the IPC will certainly be covered by the words "failure to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public functionaries". Such an allegation need not await the formulation of norms by the LG for being inquired into by the Lokayukta. Therefore, the contention that till such norms are framed by the LG, the Lokayukta should not proceed with the inquiry, deserves to be rejected.