1996 (5) TMI 435 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7, and 12 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983; Jurisdiction of Lokayukta to take action against a public servant without prior notice or opportunity.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of certain sections of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, and the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to take action against a public servant without prior notice or opportunity. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the Act and an interim report submitted by the Lokayukta. The petitioner then filed special leave petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court.

2. The petitioner did not press the issue of the constitutionality of the Act in the SLPs but objected to the procedure followed by the Lokayukta in submitting a report for action against him. The Court found no merit in the contention, highlighting the powers of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta under Section 7 of the Act to investigate and take suo motu action.

3. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Lokayukta to investigate actions and take suo motu action, with the only condition being to record reasons for initiating such an inquiry. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner was not given an opportunity before the report was submitted, citing the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Act.

4. The Lokayukta is authorized to conduct preliminary verifications and investigations confidentially, with the identity of complainants and public servants kept private. The Lokayukta can collect evidence and conduct inquiries, affording reasonable opportunities to the public servant. The Lokayukta is required to submit a report to the Government if misconduct is found, enabling the Government to take action as recommended.

5. The Court emphasized that no notice or opportunity needs to be given to a public servant during preliminary verifications or investigations to prevent suppression or destruction of evidence. The Lokayukta's power to submit an interim report with recommendations for suspension or transfer is aimed at facilitating smooth investigations without interference.

6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, upholding the validity of the Lokayukta's actions and emphasizing the procedural requirements under the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983.