9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Creation and administrative control of the post of Director General of Police, Lok Ayukta. 2. Jurisdiction of entrusting functions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta. 3. Harmonizing provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 15 of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta Act, 1984. 4. Continuation of further investigation by police officers on deputation to the Lok Ayukta. Summary: Point 1: Creation and Administrative Control of the Post of Director General of Police, Lok Ayukta The court examined whether the State Government could create the post of Director General of Police, Lok Ayukta by an administrative order dated 21.12.1992, despite the post not being included in the relevant recruitment rules of the Lok Ayukta. The court agreed with the Division Bench that the post, although created by an administrative order, must be treated as part of the Lok Ayukta's staff. The administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta over the Director General of Police and the police wing staff was affirmed, thus rejecting the learned Single Judge's view that the independence of the Lok Ayukta was under threat. Point 2: Jurisdiction of Entrusting Functions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The court considered whether the State Government could entrust additional duties under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta. It was held that such entrustment is within the jurisdiction of the State Government under its statutory powers traceable to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted that the relationship of master and servant between the State of Karnataka and the deputed officers remains intact, and the entrustment has the tacit approval of the Lok Ayukta. Points 3 and 4: Harmonizing Provisions and Continuation of Investigation The court addressed how to balance the powers of the State Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Lok Ayukta under the Karnataka Lok Ayukta Act, 1984. It was suggested that the State Government should inform the Lok Ayukta before entrusting additional work to deputed officers. If the Lok Ayukta objects, it can direct that these officers will not take up the extra work. However, if no objection is raised at the initial stage, the investigation should continue without interruption. The court upheld the Division Bench's decision that the memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued by the Lok Ayukta was redundant and invalid. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, affirming the Division Bench's judgment that the further investigation by police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta could continue. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence and effective functioning of the Lok Ayukta while allowing the State to exercise its statutory powers.
|
