9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to entertain complaints regarding the impugned actions of the writ petitioners falls for consideration in these appeals. 2. For appreciating the aforesaid question the background facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted. Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 1986 moved by Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh arises out of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 16716 of 1984. The original writ petitioner who is the contesting respondent in this appeal was at the relevant time Chief Executive Officer of Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Union Limited duly registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. A complaint was filled against his functioning as Chief Executive Officer by one A. Pratap Reddy. It was received by the Lokayukta functioning under the Act on 6th March 1984. The contesting writ petitioner's objection before the Lokayukta that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint was rejected by order dated 17th November 1984. The said order was brought in challenge by the respondent-writ petitioner before the High Court in the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Society Limited, Hyderabad. The said society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The said writ petitioner was working in the pay scale of ₹ 600-900 at the relevant time when complaint was filed against him regarding his alleged action before the Lokayukta. Writ petitioner contended that Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against him and to pass any order thereon. This contention appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court and the proceedings before the Lokayukta wee quashed. The State of Andhra Pradesh feeling aggrieved by the said order has filed the aforesaid appeal. 7. The last Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1986 is also moved by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the order passed by the same Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 12166 of 1985 moved by one S. Prakash who is the contesting respondent herein. He was the Business Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Hyderabad. A complaint was filed against him before the Lokayukta for his working as such. Respondent-writ petitioner contended before the High Court that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition read as under : (k) 'public servant' means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely : (i) .... (ii) .... (iii) every officer referred to in Clause (i); (iv)(1) every Chairman of a Zilla Parishad, and every President of a Panchayat Samithi, constituted by or under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959; (2) Every Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; (3).... (v) every Chairman or President, by whatever name called of the governing body to which the Management is entrusted and every director, if any in respect of- (1).... (2) any Corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under State Act and owned controlled by the Government; (3) .... (4).... (5) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 whose area of operation extends to the whole of the State or is confined to a part of the State extending to an area not less than a district; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l then invited our attention to other relevant parts of the definition of the term 'public servant' as found in Section 2(k). So far as the respondent-writ petitioners in Civil Appeal Nos. 2020 of 1986, 2022 of 1986 and 2024 of 1986 were concerned it was submitted that they would be covered by the definition of 'public servant' as found in Section 2(k)(v)(5) of the Act as they were working in Co-operative Societies registered under the Andhra pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State. It is not in dispute between the parties that respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 1986 at the relevant time was working as Chief Executive Officer of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Union Ltd., Hyderabad. The said Union was an apex Union registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and its area of operation extended to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Similarly in Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1986 the original second writ petitioner C. Prakash was also working in a Co-operative Society, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Wool Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. which was also duly registered under the Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 is concerned he cannot be said to be either the Chairman or President or his equivalent having any other nomenclature who was at the helm of affairs of the Managing Committee or the Governing Body of the said Society. Consequently the contesting respondent in this Civil Appeal was outside the sweep of Section 2(k)(v)(5) of the Act. 14. So far as the respondent-writ petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1986 is concerned he was a mere clerk. Hence he would not be covered by Section 2(k)(v)(5). Learned senior counsel for the appellants in this connection submitted that even though he may not be covered by the aforesaid provision he would still remain a public servant being an officer as defined by Section 2(k)(iii) read with Section 2(i). It is not possible to agree with this contention for two obvious reasons. Firstly before the said respondent could be said to be an officer of the Co-operative Society it should be shown that he was appointed to public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh, He was not so appointed. He was appointed to a post in connection with the affairs of the Co-operative Society which was an independent corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Government. It was submitted before the High Court by these writ petitioners that they were working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which was not established by the State of Andhra Pradesh under any State Act but under Central Act, namely, the Corporations Act, even though that Corporation was established by the State of Andhra Pradesh and was mainly owned and wholly controlled by the State Government. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants joined issue on this aspect and submitted for our consideration that on a proper construction of the aforesaid provision it can be seen that Section 2(k)(v)(2) consists of two types of corporations - (i) any corporation established by and owned and controlled by the State Government; and (ii) any corporation established under any State Act. She submitted, placing reliance on various provisions of the Corporations act especially Sections 3, 5, 8, 17, 23, 31, 34 and 37 thereof, that Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which was established by the Andhra Pradesh State under the aforesaid Central Act was under the comprehensive and pervasive control of the Andhra Pradesh State and the Central Government had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d get out of the sweep of Section 2(k)(v)(2) even assuming that they were corporations covered by the second part of the said provision and that it was not necessary for the corporation in which they worked to have been established under a State Act and could be established under a Central Act. Therefore, on the facts of the present case it is not necessary for us to decide the question whether a public servant working in any corporation established by the State not under a State Act but under a Central Act but which is owned and controlled wholly or partially by the State Government would satisfy the requirements of the definition Section 2(k)(v)(2) or not. We leave that question open for decision in an appropriate case, We may note that learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh had conceded before the High Court that as the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is established by the State of Andhra Pradesh not under State Act but under the Central Act, namely, the Corporation Act. Section 2(k)(v)(2) would not cover in its sweep such a corporation. Even leaving aside the question whether such a concession on a pure question of law could bind the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court, is that these statutory authorities can work as real ombudsmen for ensuring that people's faith in the working of these public servants is not shaken. These statutory authorities are meant to cater to the need of public at large with a view to seeing that public confidence in the working of public bodies remains intact. When such authorities consist of high judicial dignitaries it would be obvious that such authorities should be armed with appropriate powers and sanctions so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions. The decisions of Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta, therefore, must be capable of being fully implemented. These authorities should not he reduced to mere paper tigers but must be armed with proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are not wasted and their reports are not shelved by the concerned disciplinary authorities. When we turn to Section 12, Sub-section (3) of the Act, we find that once report is forwarded by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta recommending the imposition of penalty of removal from the office of a public servants, all that is provided is that it should be lawful for the Government without any furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
