CH. RAMA RAOversusTHE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

                          CH. RAMA RAO                                              A
                                v.
                     THE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

                                 MAY 9, 1996
                                                                                    B
 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

      A.P. Loka)'ukta & UP-Lokayukta Act, 1983.

      Ss. 7(1) and (3)-Power of Lokayukta to take .mo motu action 111
respect of any action contemplated under the Act-Held, the only condition           C
precedent required is to record reasons for initiating suo--niotu inquily divest-
ing the power of the UP-Lokayukta and taking action under sub-section (3).

       Ss. IO and ll-Preliminwy investigation by Lokayukta/UP lokayuk-
ta-Opp01tunity of hearing to public servant-Held, while conducti1igprelimi-         D
nary .verification of the complaint under sub-section (1) of s.12, the
investigation is required to be made in confidentiality and on satisfying from
the investigation of the alleged misconduct further action would be taken-It
would not be necessary to issue any notice of give opportunity to a public
se!Vant at prelinzinary verification or investigation--When the lokayukta or
                                                                                    E
UP-lokayukta conducts a regular investigation into the complaint, it would be
necessa1y to give p1ior opportunity to the public servam-Lokayukta was
justified in not issuing any notice or giving any opp01tunity to the public
servant at preliminary verificati01.-Lokayukta has power to submit a prelimi-
nary report to take fwther action so as to enable the Lokayukta to conduct
further investigation7"-Power to sub111it final report lVith recon11nendation to    F
take punitive or penal action includes power ta subn1it interini report with
recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer him pending fwther
investigation or the preliniinary verification it.r;elj.

      Administrative Law :                                                          G

       Natural justice-Opportunity of healing-Held, it would not be neces-
sary to issue any notice or give opportunity of hearing to a public seivant at
preliminary ve1ification or investigation under the A.P. Lokayukta and UP-
Lokayukta Act, 1983.                                                           H
                                       667
    668                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS j 1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    Nos. 10754-55 of 1996.

         From the .Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715 of 1996.

B         A. Sobba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Petitioners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court made on 23.4.1996 in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715/96. An
c   order was made by the Ciovcrnment on April 2, 1996 in GOMS Nu. 62
    granting certain amount to the Director of Medical Education for expan-
    sion of the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two
    generators \Vere to be erecteJ in the hospital. The petitioner \Vas required
    to sub1nit the report on the estimates. In furtherance thereof1 the petitioner
D   subn1itted the report to the Superintendent Engineer and tenders \Vere
    called for. It would appear that several people had submitted their lenders
    and the initial estimate was of Rs. 15 lakhs aml mid for one sel of the
    gcnl'.rator. Subsequently, it \Voul<l appear that the esti1nate \Vas increased
    lo Rs. 21 lakhs per set. In that behalf, a anonymous complaint came to be
    made before the Lnkayukla of A.P. constituted under Section 3 of the AP.
E   Lokayukta & Cp-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No lI of 1993) (for short, the
    'Act'). Aft::!r conducting preli1ninary investigation) the Lokayukta came to
    submit his interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the
    two sets and also by interim dated April 6, 1996 directt:d the Government
    either to suspend the petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action
F   on the Superintendent Engineer as \Veil. The petitioner came to challenge
    the l\VO orders in the above \Vrit petitions. Jn the writ petitions) the
    petitioner challenge the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the
    Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of Constitution of
    India. He abo challenged the validity of the interim report. The High Court
G   dismissed the writ petitions upholding their validity. On the question of
    interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the
    High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the interim
    report. Thus, the petitioner has filed these SLPs.

         As regards the constitutionality of the above provisions, in fairness,
H   Mr. A. Subba Ran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had not
                      RAMA RAO v. LOKAYUKTA                                669

pressed the rnme in these SLPs stating that the matters are pending A
adjudication in another appeal. But he seriously objected to the procedure
adopted by the Lokayukta in submitting the report for taking action against
the petitioner for suspension of him or to transfer him to any other place.
According to the learned counsel, the Lokayukla has no jurisdiction to take
action and Up-Lokayukta came to be appointed under the Act. We find
                                                                                  B
no force in the contention.

      Sub-sections (l) and (2) of Section 7 give power to Lokayukta and
Up-Lokayukta respectively to investigate into any action concerning per-
sons respectively mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 enables
Lokayukta, notwithstanding the power conferred under sub-section (2)              C
thereof on the Up-Lokayukta tci take suo motu action in respect of any
action contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the only condition prece-
dent required thereunder is to record reasons for initiating suo 111otu
enquiry divesting the power of the Up-Lokayukta and taking action under
Sub-section (3) of the Section 7 of the Act. It is next contended that the D
petitioner has not been given any opportunity before submitting the report
to the Governn1cnt and the action is contrary to Section 10 read vvith
Section 12 of the Act. We find no force in the contention.

      The Lokayukta is empowered under the Act to conduct such prelimi-
nary verification as he deems fit or proposes to conduct any investigation        E
 under the Act to find whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie
 justify for conducting regular investigation. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section
 10 postulates that every preliminary verification referred to in sub-section
 (1) shall be conducted in private and in particular, the identity of the
 complainant and of the public servant affected by the said preliminary           F
 verification shall not be disclosed to the public or the press whether before
 or during the preliminary verification, but every investigation referred to in
 sub-section (l} shall be conducted in public. In other words, the statutory
.provision contemplates that while conducting preliminary verification of
 the complaint under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the investigation is
 required to be made in confidentiality and on satisfying from the investiga-     G
 lion of the alleged misconduct, etc. He is empowered to take further action
 under the Act. He is also empowered under Section 11 to collect evidence
or have the investigation done as a Civil Court by operation of sub~section
(2) of Section 11 of the Act only when he satisfies that there is an evidence
to proceed further under Section JO(l)(b). At that stage, he shall afford an      H
    670                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A opporlunily to the aggrieved pnson to comment on such complaint or the
    statement and conduct the investigation or enquiry. He is enjoined to give
    reasonable opportunity to the public servant. After conducting the said
    enquiry, if he finds that the public servant or the person referred com-
    mitted misconduct, then he is required to submit the report to the Govern-
    ment as enjoined under Section 12 of the Act. On receipt thereof, under
B   sub-section (3), it shall be lawful for the Government to take action as
    recommended by the Lokayukta.

           Considered from the operational conspectus of the above provisions,
    it would not be necessary to i&Sue any notice or give opportunity to a public
c   sl:rvant at preliminary verification or investigation. When the Lokayukta or
    Up-lokayukta, as th!.! case may be, conducts a regular investigation into the
    complaint, it would he necessary to give prior opportunity to the public
    servant etc. By implication, such an opportunity stands excluded when
    preliminary verification or investigation is conducted. The object appears
D   to be that the preliminary investigation or verification is required to be
    done in confidentiality to get a p1inw facie evidence so that the needed
    evidence or material may not be got suppressed or <l(,i.troycd. It is seen
    from the report submitted by the Lukayukta, that he has p1ima facie found
    that there are some allegations against the petitioner. We are not dealing
    \Vith the nature of the allegations since the matters are yet to be inves-
E   tigated. Suffice is to state that the Lokayukta has power to submit a
    preliminary report lo take further action so as to enable the Lokayukta to
    conduct further investigation. The power to submit final report with recom-
    mendation to take punitive or penal action includes power to submit
    interim report with recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer
     him pending further investigation or the preliminary verification itself. The
F
    object of the recommendation is only to enable smooth enquiry or the
    investigation conducted without being hampered with by the persons con-
    cerned or to prevent an opportunity lo temper with the record or tu destroy
    the record. Under these circumstances, we think that the Lokayukta was
    well justified in .10t issuing any notice or giving any opportunity to the
G    petitioner at preliminary verification.

           The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                                     Petitions dismissed.