Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. I have gone through the petitions and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

15. The main plank of the petitioners' case is that the Act does not confer any power on the Commission to initiate suo-moto investigation/inquiry into an "action" of a public functionary or an 'allegation" against a public functionary. It is pleaded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to commence proceedings, on its own, on the facts that come to its notice otherwise than in the form of complaint contemplated under the Act, Rules framed thereunder and Regulations made in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners lay emphasis on the Section 3 of the Act that provides for establishment of the Commission and maps out the purpose for which the Commission is established and Sections 11, 13, 24 of the Act as also Rules 5, 7 8, 9, and 16 of Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Rules, 2005. It is insisted that Regulation 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Regulations, 2005 does not have its roots in any of the provisions of the act and is beyond scope of Section 31 of the Act where-under power is conferred on the Commission to make Regulations. It is insisted that the commission cannot under Regulation 9 assume a jurisdiction that the law makers have not conferred on the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that power to make Regulations enables the Commission to lay down the procedure to be followed by Commission for conducting proceedings including inquiries and investigations on complaints received by it and not to create a power or jurisdiction not available under the Act. The Commission, it is pointed out, cannot claim any inherent powers as available to the Court's as the power and jurisdiction of the Commission is to remain within confines of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refer to Section 24 of the Act that insulates public functionaries against false and frivolous complaint. It is pointed out that whenever a complaint is found by the Commission to be false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complaint, the Commission has power and jurisdiction in terms of Section 24 to proceed against the person and once found guilty, the complainant is to be sentenced to imprisonment and fine. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that, in case, an information that prompts the Commission to suo-moto initiate proceedings, is later found to be false, frivolous and vexatious, the Commission would be helpless to proceed against the source of information and the public functionary would be subjected to unwarranted and avoidable harassment.

16. Learned counsel for the Commission, on the other hand, argues that in terms of Section 9 of the Act delineating jurisdiction of the Commission, the Commission is empowered to investigate any "action", which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public functionary as defined in clause (16) of Section 2. Mr. Sethi argues that Sections 11 to 13 of the Act do not limit the jurisdiction of the Commission and merely lay down procedure to be followed by the Commission while conducting inquiry and investigation. Section 11 of the Act, it is pointed out, has been made subject to other provisions of the Act including Section 9 and that Section 9 is not in any manner controlled by Section 11. It is pointed out that Section 9 of the Act by omitting to use expression "allegation" and by using the expression, "action" widens power and jurisdiction of Commission. It is argued that the law makers by using the expression "action" have made it clear that the Commission to swing into action, must not necessarily have a complaint detailing the allegation before it. The Commission, it is argued can look into any "action" like decision, recommendation, or finding as also failure to act on part of public functionary, on its own without their being any allegation leveled in a complaint against such public functionary. Sections 11, 13, 24 of the Act as also to Rules 5, 7 8, 9, and 16 of Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Rules, 2005, it is pointed out, deal with only one of the modes that may prompt the commission to initiate investigation or inquiry and are not exhaustive in character, so as to infer that the Commission cannot act in absence of a formal complaint. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Commission, insists that the Regulation 9 falls within the ambit of powers available under Section 31 of the Act, inasmuch as Sub Section (2) of Section 31 is illustrative in character and does not control Sub Section (1) of Section 31 that give the Commission power to make such Regulations as it may deem necessary for "carrying out" the purpose of the Act. Regulation 9, it is emphasized does not infringe or go beyond any of the provisions of the Act and can be validly used by the Commission to initiate suo-moto proceedings against the public functionary, as has been done by the respondent-Commission in the matters on hand.

20. Section 13 likewise contemplates service of copy of the complaint on the public functionary as well as the Competent Authority. The public functionary is to present his defence within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint and the Competent Authority to furnish its comments within a period of one month from such date. In terms of Section 13 Sub-Section 3, the Commission is to hold an inquiry as expeditiously as possible and in any case, complete the inquiry within the period of six months from the date of receipt of the "complaint". Section 13(3), therefore, refers to the "complaint" while prescribing the period with which an inquiry is preferably to be completed. It again makes it clear that inquiry, investigation or proceedings cannot be initiated otherwise than on a complaint. Section 21 of the Act requires the Commission to communicate its findings through a report in writing to the complainant, the public functionary and the Competent Authority. Such report is to be published in the Government Gazette besides any other mode as may be deemed fit by the Commission. It is important to note that Section 21 refers to "allegations made in the complaint" while placing a duty on the Commission to communicate through a report its findings in the complaint, public functionary and Competent Authority. It would be advantageous to reproduce Section 21 (1) of the Act;

Provided that this shall not debar the public functionary to pursue any other remedy or relief under any law against the complaint." Section 24 is expected to discourage false, mala fide, frivolous and vexatious complaints against the public functionaries. Section 24 of the Act provides an insulation or protection to the public functionaries against false and frivolous complaints. The object is that a public functionary should be in a position to discharge his duties fearlessly, undaunted by fear of such complaints. In case, the Commission is held to have power to suo moto, in absence of a complaint, order inquiry, investigation or proceedings against a public functionary, the legal cover provided to the public functionary will disappear and the object of Section 24 of the Act would be defeated. Let us assume that the Commission without a complaint decides to suo moto, direct investigation, inquiry or proceedings against a public functionary on its own knowledge, because of some private information, suspicion or any information received otherwise through a complaint and after inquiry that may stretch over a period of few months comes to conclusion that the information received or suspicion nursed that prompted it to swing into an action, is not only baseless but mala fide, the Commission would not be in a position to prosecute and punish the source of the information. In such a case, the public functionary would be exposed to harassment, to which law makers did not intend the public functionary to be exposed. We need to be reminded that the rule makers in their wisdom under Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Rules, 2005 have made it obligatory from the complainant to sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint so that the identity of the complaint is free from any doubt and in the event the complaint is found to be false, frivolous or vexatious in terms of Section 24 of the Act, he can be proceeded with in terms of the aforesaid provision and punish in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Act. Section 24 further makes the intention of the law makers clear that the Commission was not intended to have power to suo moto order inquiry, investigation or proceedings against the public functionary in absence of the complaint.