Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The inquiry conducted by the Lokayukta culminated in the said report dated 18.07.2011. The Lokayukta was of the view that the petitioner / complainant had been able to establish that the respondent No.1 had misused her position for gain or favour to herself and her political party by misrepresenting to the public on the issue of allotting / handing over 60,000 flats to the poor and he was further of the view that the respondent No.1 was actuated, in the discharge of her functions as a public functionary, by improper motives for her personal and party interest. It was also his view that the respondent No.1 had acted in a manner which lacked faithfulness as she had misrepresented to the public, including the voters, by giving misleading and false information for the purpose of advantage in the ensuing elections. The Lokayukta also took the view that the respondent No.1 failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct expected of a public functionary occupying the august chair of the Chief Minister of Delhi. Consequently, the Lokayukta, by virtue of his report dated 18.07.2011, recommended to the President of India (respondent No.2 herein), who was the competent authority under the said Act, to administer a caution to respondent No.1 to be careful in publication of her messages in future in view of the present instance.

iii. was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public functionary by improper or corrupt motives or personal interest;

iv. is or has at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known resources of income whether such pecuniary resources or property are held by the public functionary personally or by any member of his family or by some other person on his behalf;