Powers of Lokpal in India

25. Supervisory powers of Lokpal. – (1) The Lokpal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) and section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003), have the powers of superintendence over, and to give direction to the Delhi Special Police Establishment in respect of the matters referred by the Lokpal for preliminary inquiry or investigation to the Delhi Special Police Establishment under this Act :
Provided that while exercising powers of superintendence or giving direction under this sub-section, the Lokpal shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to whom the investigation has been given, to investigate and dispose of any case in a particular manner.

(2) The Central Vigilance Commission shall send a statement, at such interval as the Lokpal may direct, to the Lokpal in respect of action taken on complaints referred to it under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 and on receipt of such statement, the Lokpal may issue guidelines for effective and expeditious disposal of such cases.

(3) Any officer of the Delhi Special Police Establishment investigating a case referred to it by the Lokpal, shall not be transferred without the approval of the Lokpal.

(4) The Delhi Special Police Establishment may, with the consent of the Lokpal, appoint a panel of Advocates, other than the Government Advocates, for conducting the cases referred to it by the Lokpal.

(5) The Central Government may from time to time make available such funds as may be required by the Director of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for conducting effective investigation into the matters referred to it by the Lokpal and the Director shall be responsible for the expenditure incurred in conducting such investigation.

26. Search and seizure. – (1) If the Lokpal has reason to believe that any document which, in its opinion, shall be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation under this Act, are secreted in any place, it may authorize any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to whom the investigation has been given to search for and to seize such documents.

(2) If the Lokpal is satisfied that any document seized under sub-section (1) may be used as evidence for the purpose of any investigation under this Act and that it shall be necessary to retain the document in its custody or in the custody of such officer as may be authorised, it may so retain or direct such authorised officer to retain such document till the completion of such investigation :

Provided that where any document is required to be returned, the Lokpal or the authorised officer may return the same after retaining copies of such document duly authenticated.

27. Lokpal to have powers of civil court in certain cases. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, for the purpose of any preliminary inquiry, the Inquiry Wing of the Lokpal shall have all the powers of a civil court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely :-
(i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(ii) requiring the discovery and production of any document;

(iii) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(iv) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;

(v) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents :

Provided that such commission, in case of a witness, shall be issued only where the witness, in the opinion of the Lokpal, is not in a position to attend the proceeding before the Lokpal; and
(vi) such other matters as may be prescribed.

(2) Any proceeding before the Lokpal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

28. Provisional attachment of assets. – Power of Lokpal to utilize services of officers of Central or State Government. – (1) The Lokpal may, for the purpose of conducting any preliminary inquiry or investigation, utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigating agency of the Central Government or any State Government, as the case may be.

(2) For the purpose of preliminary inquiry or investigating into any matter pertaining to such inquiry or investigation, any officer or organization or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) may, subject to the superintendence and direction of the Lokpal, –
(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him;

(b) require the discovery and production of any document; and

(c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from any office.

(3) The officer or organization or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (2) shall inquire or, as the case may be, investigate into any matter pertaining to the preliminary inquiry or investigation and submit a report thereon to the Lokpal within such period as may be specified by it in this behalf.

29. Provisional attachment of assets. – (1) Where the Lokpal or any officer authorized by it in this behalf, has reason to believe, the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing, on the basis of material in his possession, that –
(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of corruption;

(b) such person is accused of having committed an offense relating to corruption; and

(c) such proceeds of offense are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of offense,

the Lokpal or the authorized officer may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding ninety days from the date of the order, in the manner provided in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Lokpal and the officer shall be deemed to be an officer under sub-rule (e) of rule 1 of that Schedule.

(2) The Lokpal or the officer authorized in this behalf shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Special Court, in a sealed envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such Court may extend the order of attachment and keep such material for such period as the Court may deem fit.

(3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or after the expiry of the period as directed by the Special Court under sub-section (2).

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), from such enjoyment.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, “person interested”, in relation to any immovable property, includes all persons claiming or entitled to claim any interest in the property.

30. Confirmation of attachment of assets. – (1) The Lokpal, when it provisionally attaches any property under sub-section (1) of section 29 shall, within a period of thirty days of such attachment, direct its Prosecution Wing to file an application stating the facts of such attachment before the Special Court and make a prayer for confirmation of attachment of the property till completion of the proceedings against the public servant in the Special Court.

(2) The Special Court may, if it is of the opinion that the property provisionally attached had been acquired through corrupt means, make an order for confirmation of attachment of such property till the completion of the proceedings against the public servant in the Special Court.

(3) If the public servant is subsequently acquitted of the charges framed against him, the property, subject to the orders of the Special Court, shall be restored to the concerned public servant along with benefits from such property as might have accrued during the period of attachment.

(4) If the public servant is subsequently convicted of the charges of corruption, the proceeds relatable to the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) shall be confiscated and vest in the Central Government free from any encumbrance or leasehold interest excluding any debt due to any bank or financial institution.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions “bank”, “debt” and “financial institution” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d), (g) and (h) of section 2 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).

31. Confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits arisen or procured by means of corruption in special circumstances. – (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sections 29 and 30, where the Special Court, on the basis of prima facie evidence, has reason to believe or is satisfied that the assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits, by whatever name called, have arisen or procured by means of corruption by the public servant, it may authorize the confiscation of such assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits till his acquittal.

(2) Where an order of confiscation made under sub-section (1) is modified or annulled by the High Court or where the public servant is acquitted by the Special Court, the assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits, confiscated under sub-section (1) shall be returned to such public servant, and in case it is not possible for any reason to return the assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits, such public servant shall be paid the price thereof including the money so confiscated with interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum thereon calculated from the date of confiscation.

32. Power of Lokpal to recommend transfer or suspension of public servant connected with allegation of corruption. – (1) Where the Lokpal, while making a preliminary inquiry into allegations of corruption, is prima facie satisfied, on the basis of evidence available, –
(i) that the continuance of the public servant referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 in his post while conducting the preliminary inquiry is likely to affect such preliminary inquiry adversely; or

(ii) such public servant is likely to destroy or in any way tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses,

then, the Lokpal may recommend to the Central Government for transfer or suspension of such public servant from the post held by him till such period as may be specified in the order.

(2) The Central Government shall ordinarily accept the recommendation of the Lokpal made under sub-section (1), except for the reasons to be recorded in writing in a case where it is not feasible to do so for administrative reasons.

33. Power of Lokpal to give directions to prevent destruction of records during preliminary inquiry. – The Lokpal may, in the discharge of its functions under this Act, issue appropriate directions to a public servant entrusted with the preparation or custody of any document or record –
(a) to protect such document or record from destruction or damage; or

(b) to prevent the public servant from altering or secreting such document or record; or

(c) to prevent the public servant from transferring or alienating any assets allegedly acquired by him through corrupt means.

34. Power to delegate. – The Lokpal may, by general or special order in writing, and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified therein, direct that any administrative or financial power conferred on it may also be exercised or discharged by such of its Members or officers or employees as may be specified in the order.

Jurisdiction in Respect of Inquiry by Lokpal

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

Jurisdiction in Respect of Inquiry

14. Jurisdiction of Lokpal to include Prime Minister, Ministers, members of Parliament, Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of Central Government. – (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Lokpal shall inquire or cause an inquiry to be conducted into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with, any allegation of corruption made in a complaint in respect of the following, namely :-
(a) any person who is or has been a Prime Minister :

Provided that the Lokpal shall not inquire into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with, any such allegation of corruption against the Prime Minister, –

(i) in so far as it relates to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space;

(ii) unless a full bench of the Lokpal consisting of its Chairperson and all Members considers the initiation of inquiry and at least two-thirds of its Members approves of such inquiry:

Provided further that any such inquiry shall be held in camera and if the Lokpal comes to the conclusion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed, the records of the inquiry shall not be published or made available to anyone;

(b) any person who is or has been a Minister of the Union;

(c) any person who is or has been a member of either House of Parliament;

(d) any Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ officer or equivalent or above, from amongst the public servants defined in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) when serving or who has served, in connection with the affairs of the Union;

(e) any Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ official or equivalent, from amongst the public servants defined in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) when serving or who has served in connection with the affairs of the Union subject to the provision of sub-section (1) of section 20;

(f) any person who is or has been a chairperson or member or officer or employee in any body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or trust or autonomous body (by whatever name called) established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed by the Central Government or controlled by it :

Provided that in respect of such officers referred to in clause (d) who have served in connection with the affairs of the Union or in any body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or trust or autonomous body referred to in clause (e) but are working in connection with the affairs of the State or in any body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or trust or autonomous body (by whatever name called) established by an Act of the State Legislature or wholly or partly financed by the State Government or controlled by it, the Lokpal and the officers of its Inquiry Wing or Prosecution Wing shall have jurisdiction under this Act in respect of such officers only after obtaining the consent of the concerned State Government;

(g) any person who is or has been a director, manager, secretary or other officer of every other society or association of persons or trust (whether registered under any law for the time being in force or not), by whatever name called, wholly or partly financed by the Government and the annual income of which exceeds such amount as the Central Government may, by notification, specify;

(h) any person who is or has been a director, manager, secretary or other officer of every other society or association of persons or trust (whether registered under any law for the time being in force or not) in receipt of any donation from any foreign source under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (42 of 2010) in excess of ten lakh rupees in a year or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification, specify.

Explanation. – For the purpose of clauses (f) and (g), it is hereby clarified that any entity or institution, by whatever name called, corporate, society, trust, association of persons, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability partnership (whether registered under any law for the time being in force or not), shall be the entities covered in those clauses :
Provided that any person referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a public servant under clause (c) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Lokpal shall not inquire into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with, any such allegation of corruption against any member of either House of Parliament in respect of anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof covered under the provisions contained in clause (2) of article 105 of the Constitution.

(3) The Lokpal may inquire into any act or conduct of any person other than those referred to in sub-section (1), if such person is involved in the act of abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking or conspiracy relating to any allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) against a person referred to in sub-section (1) :

Provided that no action under this section shall be taken in case of a person serving in connection with the affairs of a State, without the consent of the State Government.
(4) No matter in respect of which a complaint has been made to the Lokpal under this Act, shall be referred for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952).

Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a complaint under this Act shall only relate to a period during which the public servant was holding or serving in that capacity.

15. Matters pending before any court or committee or authority for inquiry not. – In case any matter or proceeding related to allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) has been pending before any court or committee of either House of Parliament or before any other authority prior to commencement of this Act or prior to commencement of any inquiry after the commencement of this Act, such matter or proceeding shall be continued before such court, committee or authority.

16. Constitution of benches of Lokpal. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, –
(a) the jurisdiction of the Lokpal may be exercised by benches thereof;

(b) a bench may be constituted by the Chairperson with two or more Members as the Chairperson may deem fit;

(c) every bench shall ordinarily consist of at least one Judicial Member;

(d) where a bench consists of the Chairperson, such bench shall be presided over by the Chairperson;

(e) where a bench consists of a Judicial Member, and a non-Judicial Member, not being the Chairperson, such bench shall be presided over by the Judicial Member;

(f) the benches of the Lokpal shall ordinarily sit at New Delhi and at such other places as the Lokpal may, by regulations, specify.

(2) The Lokpal shall notify the areas in relation to which each bench of the Lokpal may exercise jurisdiction.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Chairperson shall have the power to constitute or reconstitute benches from time to time.

(4) If at any stage of the hearing of any case or matter it appears to the Chairperson or a Member that the case or matter is of such nature that it ought to be heard by a bench consisting of three or more Members, the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairperson or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer, to such bench as the Chairperson may deem fit.

17. Distribution of business amongst benches. – Where benches are constituted, the Chairperson may, from time to time, by notification, make provisions as to the distribution of the business of the Lokpal amongst the benches and also provide for the matters which may be dealt with by each bench.

18. Power of Chairperson to transfer cases. – On an application for transfer made by the complainant or the public servant, the Chairperson, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant or the public servant, as the case may be, may transfer any case pending before one bench for disposal to any other bench.

19. Decision to be by majority. – If the Members of a bench consisting of an even number of Members differ in opinion on any point, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the Chairperson who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other Members of the Lokpal and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Lokpal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.

Procedure in Respect of Preliminary Inquiry and Investigation by Lokpal

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

Procedure in Respect of Preliminary Inquiry and Investigation

20. Provisions relating to complaints and preliminary inquiry and investigation. – (1) The Lokpal on receipt of a complaint, if it decides to proceed further, may order –
(a) preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry Wing or any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter; or

(b) investigation by any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) when there exists a prima facie case :

Provided that the Lokpal shall if it has decided to proceed with the preliminary inquiry, by a general or special order, refer the complaints or a category of complaints or a complaint received by it in respect of public servants belonging to Group A or Group B or Group C or Group D to the Central Vigilance Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003) :
Provided further that the Central Vigilance Commission in respect of complaints referred to it under the first proviso, after making preliminary inquiry in respect of public servants belonging to Group A and Group B, shall submit its report to the Lokpal in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) and in case of public servants belonging to Group C and Group D, the Commission shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003) :

Provided also that before ordering an investigation under clause (b), the Lokpal shall call for the explanation of the public servant so as to determine whether there exists a prima facie case for investigation :

Provided also that the seeking of explanation from the public servant before an investigation shall not interfere with the search and seizure, if any, required to be undertaken by any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) under this Act.

(2) During the preliminary inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the Inquiry Wing or any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) shall conduct a preliminary inquiry and on the basis of material, information and documents collected seek the comments on the allegations made in the complaint from the public servant and the competent authority and after obtaining the comments of the concerned public servant and the competent authority, submit, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference, a report to the Lokpal.

(3) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokpal shall consider every report received under sub-section (2) from the Inquiry Wing or any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment), and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide whether there exists a prima facie case, and proceed with one or more of the following actions, namely:-

(a) investigation by any agency or the Delhi Special Police Establishment, as the case may be;

(b) initiation of the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servants by the competent authority;

(c) closure of the proceedings against the public servant and to proceed against the complainant under section 46.

(4) Every preliminary inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall ordinarily be completed within a period of ninety days and for reasons to be recorded in writing, within a further period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the complaint.

(5) In case the Lokpal decides to proceed to investigate into the complaint, it shall direct any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to carry out the investigation as expeditiously as possible and complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of its order :

Provided that the Lokpal may extend the said period by a further period not exceeding of six months at a time for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) shall, in respect of cases referred to it by the Lokpal, submit the investigation report under that section to the court having jurisdiction and forward a copy thereof to the Lokpal.

(7) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokpal shall consider every report received by it under sub-section (6) from any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) and after obtaining the comments of the competent authority and the public servant may –

(a) grant sanction to its Prosecution Wing or investigating agency to file charge-sheet or direct the closure of report before the Special Court against the public servant;

(b) direct the competent authority to initiate the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant.

(8) The Lokpal may, after taking a decision under sub-section (7) on the filing of the charge-sheet, direct its Prosecution Wing or any investigating agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to initiate prosecution in the Special Court in respect of the cases investigated by the agency.

(9) The Lokpal may, during the preliminary inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, pass appropriate orders for the safe custody of the documents relevant to the preliminary inquiry or, as the case may be, investigation as it deems fit.

(10) The website of the Lokpal shall, from time to time and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, display to the public, the status of number of complaints pending before it or disposed of by it.

(11) The Lokpal may retain the original records and evidences which are likely to be required in the process of preliminary inquiry or investigation or conduct of a case by it or by the Special Court.

(12) Save as otherwise provided, the manner and procedure of conducting a preliminary inquiry or investigation (including such material and documents to be made available to the public servant) under this Act, shall be such as may be specified by regulations.

21. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard. – If, at any stage of the proceeding, the Lokpal –

(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person other than the accused; or

(b) is of opinion that the reputation of any person other than an accused is likely to be prejudicially affected by the preliminary inquiry,

the Lokpal shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the preliminary inquiry and to produce evidence in his defense, consistent with the principles of natural justice.

22. Lokpal may require any public servant or any other person to furnish information, etc. – Subject to the provisions of this Act, for the purpose of any preliminary inquiry or investigation, the Lokpal or the investigating agency, as the case may be, may require any public servant or any other person who, in its opinion, is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to such preliminary inquiry or investigation, to furnish any such information or produce any such document.

23. Power of Lokpal to grant sanction for initiating prosecution. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), the Lokpal shall have the power to grant sanction for prosecution under clause (a) of sub-section (7) of section 20.

(2) No prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be initiated against any public servant accused of any offense alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and no court shall take cognizance of such offense except with the previous sanction of the Lokpal.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply in respect of the persons holding office in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution and in respect of which a procedure for removal of such person has been specified therein.
(4) The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution.

24. Action on investigation against public servant being Prime Minister, Ministers or Members of Parliament. – Where, after the conclusion of the investigation, the findings of the Lokpal disclose the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) by a public servant referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 14, the Lokpal may file a case in the Special Court and shall send a copy of the report together with its findings to the competent authority.

The M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981

M.P. Act 37 of 1981

[Dated 16th September, 1981]

Received the assent of the President on 16-9-1981; assent first published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 15-10-1981.

An Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the enquiry into the allegations against [public servants] and for matters connected therewith.
Be it enacted by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature in the Thirty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows :-

1. Short title, extent and commencement. – (1) This Act may be called the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
(3) It shall come into force on such [date] as the State Government may, by notification, appoint.

2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “Officer” means a person appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh;

(b) “allegation” in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant,-

(i) has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm to any person;

(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motives;

(iii) is guilty of corruption; or

(iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income and such pecuniary resources or property is held by the public servant personally or by any member of his family or by some other person on his behalf.

Explanation. – For the purpose of this sub-clause ‘family’ means husband, wile, sons and unmarried daughters living jointly with him;
(c) “Up-Lokayukt” means a person appointed as a Up-Lokayukt under Section 3;

(d) “action” means action by way of prosecution or otherwise taken on the report of the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt and includes failure to act; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly;

(e) “Minister” means a member of the Council of Ministers by whatever name called for the State of Madhya Pradesh that is to say [Chief Minister], Deputy Chief Minister, Minister, Minister of State, Deputy Minister and Parliamentary Secretary [and shall include Neta Pratipaksha as defined in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Mandal Neta Pratipaksha (Vetan Tatha Bhalta) Adhiniyam, 1980 (No. 8 of 1980);]

(f) “Lokayukt” means a person appointed as the Lokayukt under Section 3;

(g) “Public servant” means person falling under any of the following categories, namely,-

(i) Minister;

(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Neta Pratipaksha;

(iii) an officer referred to in clause (a);

[(iv) an officer of an Apex Society or Central Society within the meaning of clause (t-1) read with clauses (a-1), (c-1) and (z) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (No. 17 of 1961);]

[(v) Any person holding any office in, or any employee of-

(i) a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or

(ii) a Corporation or local, authority established by State Government under a Central or State enactment.]

[(vi) (a) Up-Kulpati, Adhyacharya and Kul-Sachiva of the Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya constituted under Section 3 of the Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956 (No. 19 of 1956);

(b) Kulpati and Registrar of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya constituted under Section 3 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 (No. 12 of 1963);

(c) Kulpati, Rector and Registrar of the Vishwavidyalaya constituted under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973).]

(h) “Competent authority” in relation to a public servant, means,-

(i) in the case of a Minister or Secretary.

Chief Minister or during the period of operation of proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, the Governor,

(ii) in the case of any other public servant.

Such authority as may be prescribed;

(i) “Secretary” means the Chief Secretary, a Principal Secretary, an Additional Chief Secretary, and a Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh and includes an Additional Secretary and a Special Secretary.

3. Appointment of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt. – (1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukt and one or more persons to be known as Up-Lokayukt:
Provided that,-
(a) The Lokayukt shall be appointed after consultation with [the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and] the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, or if there be no such leader, a person selected in this behalf by the members of the opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker may direct;

[(b) Up-Lokayukt shall be appointed after consultation with the Lokayukt, or where a sitting Judge of a High Court is to be appointed, the Chief Justice of that High Court in which he is working, shall also be consulted.]

[(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as,-
(a) Lokayukt, unless he has been a Judge of the Supreme Court [or Chief Justice or Judge of any High Court in India;]

(b) Up-Lokayukt, unless he is or has been a Judge of any High Court in India or has held the office of the Secretary to Government of India or has held any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay [which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to Government of India] .]

(3) Every person appointed as Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe, before the Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.
(4) The Up-Lokayukt shall be subject to the administrative control of the Lokayukt and, in particular, for the purpose of convenient disposal of investigations under this Act, the Lokayukt may issue such general or special directions as he may consider necessary to the Lokayukt and may withdraw to himself [or may, subject to the provisions of Section 7, make over any case to Up-Lokayukt for disposal:]

Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to authorise the Lokayukt to question any finding, conclusion or recommendation of Up-Lokayukt.

4. Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt to hold no other office. – The Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall not be a member of Parliament or a member of the Legislature of any State and shall not hold any other office of trust or profit or be an officer of a Co-operative Society and shall not be connected with any political party or carry on any business or practice any profession; and accordingly before he enters upon his office, a person appointed as the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt as the case may be, shall,-
(a) if he is a member of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State, resign such membership; or

(b) if he holds any office of trust or profit, resign from such office; or

(c) if he connected with any political party, sever his connection with it; or

(d) if he is carrying on any business, sever his connection (short of divesting himself of ownership) with the conduct and management of such business; or

(e) if he is practising any profession, suspend practice of such profession.

5. Term of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt. – (1) Every person appointed as Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall hold office for a term of [six years] from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for re-appointment thereafter :
[Provided that the term of Up-Lokayukt may be extended for a period not exceeding three years, if so recommended by the Lokayukt :
[Provided further that]-
(a) Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office and such resignation shall be effective as soon as it is tendered;

(b) Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt may be removed from office in the manner specified in Section 6.

[(2) In the event of occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Lokayukt by reason of his death, resignation, removal or for any other reason], the Up-Lokayukt or if there are more than one then such one of them as the Governor may, by order direct shall, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, act as Lokayukt until the date a new Lokayukt appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill such vacancy enters upon his office.
(2-A) When the Lokayukt is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the Up-Lokayukt or if there are more than one then such one of them as the Governor may, by order, direct, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, discharge his functions until the date the Lokayukt resumes his duties.
(2-B) The Up-Lokayukt shall, during, and in respect of, the period while he is so acting as, or discharging the functions of Lokayukt, have all the powers and immunities of the Lokayukt and be entitled to salary, allowances and perquisites as are specified in the Second Schedule in relation to Lokayukt.
(2-C) A vacancy occurring in the office of the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt by reason of his death, resignation or removal shall be filled in as soon as possible but not later than one year from the date of occurrence of such vacancy.]
(3) On ceasing to hold office, Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall be ineligible for further employment (whether as Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt or in any other capacity) under the Government of Madhya Pradesh or for any employment under, or office in, any such cooperative society, Government Company, or Corporation [under the administrative control of the Government of Madhya Pradesh] as is referred to in sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of clause (g) of Section 2.
[(4) The salary, allowances, pension and other perquisites payable to and other conditions of service of Lokayukt shall be same as are admissible to him before his appointment as contained in the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 (No. 41 of 1958), or the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (No. 28 of 1954) and the rules made under the aforesaid Acts as the case may be.]
[(5) The salary, allowances, pension and other perquisites payable to and other conditions of service of Up-Lokayukt shall be the same as admissible to a sitting Judge of a High Court as contained in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (No. 28 of 1954) and the rules made thereunder:
Provided that, if the Lokayukt or a Up-Lokayukt at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service, his salary in respect of service as the Lokayukt or, as the case may be, Up-Lokayukt shall be reduced,-
(a) by the amount of that pension; and

(b) if he has, before such appointment received in lieu of a portion of the pension due to him in respect of such previous service the commuted value thereof by the amount of that portion of the pension.]

6. Removal of Lokayukt. – (1) The Lokayukt shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Governor passed after an address by the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly supported by a majority of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members thereof present and voting has been presented to the Governor in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
(2) The procedure for the presentation of an address and the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Lokayukt under sub-section (1) shall be as provided in the Judge (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (No. 51 of 1968), in relation to the removal of a Judge and, accordingly, the provisions of that Act shall, subject to necessary modifications, apply in relation to the removal of the Lokayukt as they apply in relation to the removal of a Judge.

7. Matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt. – Subject to the provisions of this Act, on receiving complaint or other information,-
(i) the Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against a public servant in relation to whom the Chief Minister is the competent authority;

(ii) the Up-Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation made against any public servant other than that referred to in clause (i) :

Provided that the Lokayukt may enquire into an allegation made against any public servant referred to in clause (ii).]
[Explanation. – For the purposes of this section the expressions “may proceed to enquire” and “may enquire” include investigation by police agency put at the disposal of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Section 13.]

8. Matters not subject to enquiry. – The Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt shall not inquire into any matter,-
(a) in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1950 (No. 37 of 1950);

(b) which has been referred for inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (No. 60 of 1952); or

(c) relating to an allegation against a public servant, if the complaint is made after expiration of a period of five years from the date on which the conduct complained against is alleged to have been committed.

9. Provisions relating to complaints. – (1) Every complaint involving an allegation shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a deposit of twenty-five rupees. The complainant shall also swear in affidavit in such form as may be prescribed before the Lokayukt or any officer authorised by the Lokayukt in this behalf:
[Provided that, in the case of a complaint against a public servant in relation to whom the Chief Minister is not the competent authority neither the deposit nor the affidavit shall be necessary :
Provided further that, if in the opinion of the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt, it is necessary to have the deposit as well as the affidavit, he may direct that the complainant shall also make the deposit of twenty-live rupees and submit an affidavit in the prescribed form before him or any officer authorised by him.]
[(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law enacted by the State Legislature for the time being in force, any letter written to the Lokayukt by a person in police custody or in a Jail or in any asylum or other place for insane person, shall be forwarded to the Lokayukt unopened and without delay by the Police Officer or person in charge of such Jail, asylum or other place and the Lokayukt may, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do, treat such letter as a complaint made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 or any other provision of the Act every person who wilfully or maliciously makes any false complaint under this Act shall, on conviction be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to live thousand rupees or with both and the Court may order that out of the amount of fine, such sum as it may deem fit, be paid by way of compensation to the person against whom such complaint was made :
Provided that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except on a complaint made by or under the authority of the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be :
Provided further that the complaint made under the signature and seal of Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall be deemed as formally proved and the evidence of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt shall not be necessary for the purpose.

10. Procedure in respect of enquiry. – The Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall, in each case before it, decide the procedure to be followed for making the enquiry and in so doing ensure that the principles of natural justice are satisfied.

11. Applicability of Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure. – The general principles of powers conferred by Evidence Act, 1872 (No. 1 of 1872), and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), shall as nearly as may be apply to the procedure of inquiry before Lokayukt or Up-Lokavukt in the matter of,-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents and proof thereof;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof, from any Court or office;

(e) issuing commission for examination of witness or documents; and such other matters as may be prescribed :

Provided that no proceeding before the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall be invalidated only on account of want of formal proof if the principles of natural justice are satisfied :
[Provided further that where it is necessary to summon any Government servant in his official capacity, his statement on affidavit shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence.]
(2) Any proceeding before Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall be deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 [and Section 228] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860).
(3) The Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt shall be deemed to be Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (No. LXX of 1971).

12. Reports of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt. – (1) If, after enquiry into the allegations the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt is satisfied that such allegation is established, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations alongwith the relevant document, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.
(2) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and initiate, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Lokayukt or, as the case may be, the Up-Lokayukt, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.
[(2-A) x x x]
(3) If the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations, he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned. In any other case, if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned.
(4) The Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of their functions under this Act, to the Governor.
(5) If in any special report under sub-section (3) or the annual report under sub-section (4) any adverse comment is made against any public servant, such report shall also contain the substance of the defence adduced by such public servant and the comment made thereon by or on behalf of the State Government or department concerned of the State Government or the public authority concerned, as the case may be.
(6) On receipt of a special report under sub-section (3), or the annual report under sub-section (4), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before the State Legislative Assembly.
(7) Subject to the provisions of Section 10, the Lokayukt may at his discretion make available from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him or by an Up-Lokayukt, which may appear to him to be of general public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate.

12A. Report in respect of complaint against the Chief Minister or Neta Pratipaksha. – [(1) The Lokayukt shall send his report in respect of a complaint against the Chief Minister or the Neta Pratipaksha with his recommendations to the Governor who shall take such action as he may deem lit or expedient on the report.
(2) The report of the Lokayukt and the order passed by the Governor shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly.]

13. Staff of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt. – (1) The Lokayukt may appoint, or authorise an Up-Lokayukt or any Officer subordinate to the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt to appoint, officers and other employees to assist the Lokayukt and the Up-Lokayukt in the discharge of their functions under this Act.
(2) The categories of officers and employees who may be appointed under sub-section (1), their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service and the administrative powers of the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt shall be such as may be prescribed, after consultation with the Lokayukt.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt may for the purpose of conducting enquiries under this Act, utilize the services of,-
[(i) [Divisional Vigilance Committee] constituted under Section 13-A;]

(ii) any officer or investigation agency of the State or Central Government with the concurrence of that Government; or

(iii) any other person or agency.

[(4) The services of officers and employees, other than those appointed by the Lokayukt under sub-section (1) shall not be taken back before the expiry of the period of deputation by the concerned department without prior concurrence of the Lokayukt.]

13A. Constitution of [Divisional Vigilance Committee. – [(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette constitute a [Divisional Vigilance Committee] for [each Division] consisting of three members out of whom one shall be retired Judicial Officer not below the rank of a Civil Judge Class I or a retired executive officer having experience of Court’s working not below the rank of a class I Officer of the State Government.]
(2) One of the members shall be the Chairperson of the Committee. The Chairperson and the members shall be appointed by the State Government [on the recommendation of] Lokayukt.
[(3) Every member of the [Divisional Vigilance Committee] shall hold office for a term of 3 years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term not exceeding three years. However, no member shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of 70 years :
Provided that the Chairperson or a member may resign his office before expiry of his term by sending a letter to the Lokayukt:
Provided further that the Chairperson or a member may be removed by the State Government, on grounds of misconduct or physical or mental incapacity for discharging duties of the office, on the recommendations of the Lokayukt.
(3-A) The minimum age for appointment as a member shall be thirty-five years.]
(4) The State Government may authorise a [Divisional Vigilance Committee] to have jurisdiction over [another Division] also for which no separate committee is constituted.
(5) A [Divisional Vigilance Committee] shall enquire into a complaint referred to it by the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt and submit a report to the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be.
(6) In holding the enquiry, the committee shall ensure that the principles of natural justice are observed. The committee shall have the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) in respect of the following matters,-
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath.

(b) Requiring the discovery and production of documents and proof thereof.

(c) Receiving evidence on affidavits.

(d) Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office.

(e) Issuing commission for examination of witnesses or documents and such other matters as may be prescribed.

(7) Subject to foregoing provisions the procedure relating to conduct of meetings of the committee, its place of sitting and other allied matters, shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukt.
(8) The Committee shall discharge the functions under the administrative control of the Lokayukt who may issue such general or special directions as he may think fit for smooth and efficient functioning of the committees.]

14. Secrecy of information. – (1) Any information, obtained by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt or members of their staff in the course of, or for the purposes of any investigation under this Act, and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall, be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (No. 1 of 1872), no Court shall be entitled to compel the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt or any public servant to give evidence relating to such information or produce the evidence so recorded or collected.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the disclosure of any information or particulars,-
(a) for purposes of the enquiry or in any report to be made thereon or for any action or proceedings to be taken on such report; or

(b) for purposes of any proceedings for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. 1923 (No. 19 of 1923), or any offence of giving or fabricating false evidence under the Indian Penal Code or for purposes of any proceedings under Section 15; or

(c) for such other purposes as may be prescribed.

(3) An Officer or other authority prescribed in this behalf may give notice in writing to the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be, with respect to any document or information specified in the notice or any class of documents so specified that in the opinion of the State Government the disclosure of the documents or information or documents or information of that class would be contrary to public interest and where such a notice is given, nothing in this Act, shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Lokayukt, the Up-Lokayukt or any member of their staff to communicate to any person any document or information specified in the notice or any document or information of a class so specified.

15. Protection. – No suit, prosecution or other legal preceding shall lie against the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt or against any officer, employee, agency or person referred to in Section 13 in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

16. Lokayukt to make suggestions. – The Lokayukt, it in the discharge of his function under this Act, notices a practice or procedure which in his opinion affords an opportunity for corruption or mal-administration, he may bring it to the notice of the Government and may suggest such improvement in the said practice or procedure as he may deem fit.

17. Power to make rules. – (1) The Governor may, by notification, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
[(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of powers in sub-section (1), the State Government in consultation with the Lokayukt may by rules provide for the mode and manner of selection of Chairperson and Members of the [Divisional Vigilance Committee], their honorarium and other allowances, conditions of service, staff of the committee and allied matters.]
[(3)] All rules made under this section shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly.

18. Removal of doubts. – For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act, shall be construed to authorise the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt to enquire into an allegation against,-
(a) any member of the judicial service who is under the administrative control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India;

(b) the Chairman or a member of the Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission.

19. Saving. – The provision of this Act, shall be in addition to the provisions of any other enactment or any rule of law under which any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or in any other matter is available to a person making a complaint under this Act, in respect of any action, and nothing in this Act, shall limit or effect the right of such person to avail of such remedy.

20. Transfer of complaints pending before Vigilance Commissioner and prohibition to entertain complaints disposed of prior to commencement of this Act. – (1) All complaints pending before the Vigilance Commissioner immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt as the case may be, and shall thereupon be disposed of by the Lokayukt or the Up-Lokayukt as if they were complaints entertained by him under this Act.
(2) No complaint disposed of by the Vigilance Commissioner prior to the commencement of this Act, shall be entertained by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under this Act:
Provided that the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt, as the case may be, may if he considers it necessary so to do to meet the ends of justice, enquire into any complaint finally disposed of by the Vigilance Commissioner within a period of two years prior to the commencement of this Act.

The First Schedule

[See Section 3 (3)]

I…….. having been appointed Lokayukt/Up-Lokayukt do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
The Second Schedule

[x x x]

Notifications

[Notification No. F.E.5-(6)-1981-1-5, dated 14-2-1982.] – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (No. 37 of 1981), the State Government hereby appoints 14th February, 1982 as the date on which the said Adhiniyam shall come into force.
[Notification No. F. 3 (5)-85-XLIX-10, dated 15-12-1988.] – Consequent upon the constitution of Lokayukt organisation in place of State Vigilance Commission under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (with effect from the 14th February, 1982) the State Government hereby declare that the State Vigilance Commission which was constituted under the General Administration Department’s Resolution No. 354-Cr-9-1 (b)-64, dated the 6th February, 1964 will cease to function with effect from 14th February, 1982.
2. The State Government after dissolving the Divisional Vigilance Boards and District Vigilance Officers constituted under the said Resolution of the General Administration Department, hereby constitute the following Divisional Vigilance Board at each Division level with immediate effect : –

Divisional Vigilance Board

1. There shall be a Divisional Vigilance Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for each Division.
2. There shall be two members in every Board namely : –
Divisional Commissioner and Dy. Inspector General of Police.

3. The Divisional Commissioner will be the convenor of the Board.
4. The powers and functions of the Board shall be as follows,-
(a) To take suitable action in the cases received from Lokayukt/ Up-Lokayukl/State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences;

(b) To entrust any complaint, information or case received by it to the concerned Division/District level officer for enquiry;

(c) To issue directions for further action, after examining the enquiry report received in the above mentioned cases;

(d) To ensure expeditious execution of enquiry work in various cases by officers of different departments working in the division;

(e) To examine the procedures of divisional level and subordinate officer from time to time and to suggest ways and means to redress the delay and inconvenience, if any, caused to the general public.


Connected Laws:

  1. M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt (Investigation) Rules, 1982
  2. M.P. Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982
  3. M.P. Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt (District Vigilance Committees) Rules, 1995

MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

 (2014) AIR(SC) 2051 : (2014) 5 SCALE 587 : (2014) 11 SCC 415 : (2014) 6 SCJ 1 : (2015) 2 SLR 373

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FULL BENCH

( Before : P. Sathasivam, C.J.; Ranjan Gogoi, J; N.V. Ramana, J )

MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 410 of 2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2013, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 228 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 4853 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27319 of 2012), T.P. (C) Nos. 1228, 1230, 1248, 1250, 1425, 1412-1413 of 2012 and 74 of 2013 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided on : 24-04-2014

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 168, Article 194, Article 197, Article 198, Article 199, Article 199(1), Article 199(2), Article 199(3), Article 200, Article 202, Article 212, Article 252, Article 255, Article 32
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 – Section 13
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 – Section 13(5), Section 2, Section 20A, Section 3, Section 5, Section 5(1), Section 5(3), Section 6
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32, 168, 194, 197, 198, 199, 199(1), 199(2), 199(3), 200, 202, 212, 252, 255

Cases Referred

Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others, AIR 1960 SC 1186 : (1961) 1 SCR 96
K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others, AIR 1958 SC 687 : (1959) 1 SCR 583
Raja Ram Pal Vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others, (2007) 2 JT 1 : (2007) 3 SCC 184 : (2007) 1 SCR 317
Mangalore Ganesh Bedi Works Vs. The State of Mysore and Another, AIR 1963 SC 589 : (1963) 1 SCR 275 Supp : (1963) 14 STC 198

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, C.J.I.

Writ Petition (C) No. 410 of 2012

1. The above writ petition, Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of quo warranto against Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Respondent No. 2 herein, for continuing as Lokayukta after 15.03.2012. The Petitioner is also challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 (for short “the Amendment Act”) to the extent being ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts:

(a) Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, was appointed as Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.03.2006 under the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”).

(b) Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the term for which Lokayukta shall hold office is six years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Further, Section 5(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further appointment, whether as a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta or in any other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 completed his term of six years on 15.03.2012.

(c) On 15.03.2012, the new government formed after the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly elections. On the same day, an Ordinance for amending the Act was passed by the Cabinet and sent to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for assent. However, the same did not receive the assent of the Governor.

(d) On 18.03.2012, another Ordinance on the same subject matter was sent for the assent of the Governor and after receiving the assent of the Governor, the same was published which came into effect from 22.03.2012. Under the said Ordinance, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended and the term of the Lokayukta was extended to eight years with effect from 15.03.2012.

(e) Subsequently, Respondent No. 1-State of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Amendment Act which received the assent of the Governor on 06.07.2012. By the said Amendment Act, the term of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta was extended from six years to eight years or till the successor enters upon his office. The said Amendment Act also seeks to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayuktas’ or Up-Lokayuktas’ for further appointment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office as such, and for making the said provisions applicable to the sitting Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of the said ordinance, i.e., 15.03.2012.

(f) Challenging the said Amendment Act, the Petitioner is before us by way of writ petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

3. Similar prayers have been made by the Petitioners in Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 228 of 2012 and 289 of 2013. Similar petitions were also filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In view of the similarity of the issues involved in these petitions, transfer petitions, viz., T.P. (C) Nos. 1228 & 1230 of 2012, T.P. (C) Nos. 1248 & 1250 of 2012, T.P. (C) No. 1425 of 2012 and T.P. (C) Nos. 1412-1413 of 2012 have been filed before this Court. However, T.P.(C) No. 1229 of 2012 was directed to be transferred to this Court by an order dated 01.02.2013 and, accordingly, the same is numbered as T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 27319 of 2012

4. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.

5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24905 of 2012 whereby the High Court, while allowing the amendment application to the writ petition and holding the writ petition to be maintainable, directed to list the petition on 27.09.2012 for hearing on merits.

6. By way of the said amendment application, the writ Petitioner sought to add two grounds in the writ petition, viz., the Amendment Act is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the same was wrongly introduced as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Amendment Act as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.

7. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012, the State of U.P. has filed the afore-said appeal by way of special leave.

8. By an order dated 24.09.2012, this Court stayed the further proceedings in CMWP No. 24905 of 2012.

9. Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior Counsel for Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012.

Contentions:

10. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that, by way of the Amendment Act, the State of U.P. has, in substance and effect, reappointed Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, as Lokayukta of the State of U.P. notwithstanding the fact that his six years’ term had already expired on 15.03.2012. There is a statutory bar against the reappointment of the Lokayukta in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act.

11. Mr. Venugopal further submitted that by passing the Amendment Act, the State Government handpicked a person who they believe would ensure that the Chief Minister, his Ministers and political supporters would be protected, despite the acts of corruption in which they may indulge in. The reappointment of Justice Mehrotra (retd.), who had demitted the office and was prohibited from holding any post, bypassed the safeguards contained in Section 3 of the Act, which stands unamended.

12. It was further submitted that the Amendment Act was not even passed by the State Legislature in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and is, thus, a mere scrap of paper in the eyes of law. The Bill in question was presented as a Money Bill when, on the face of it, it could never be called as a Money Bill as defined in Articles 199(1) and 199(2) of the Constitution of India. Since the procedure for an Ordinary Bill was not followed and the assent of the Governor was obtained to an inchoate and incomplete Bill which had not even gone through the mandatory requirements under the Constitution of India, the entire action was unconstitutional and violative of Article 200 of the Constitution of India.

13. Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior Counsel for the State of U.P., submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in law or on facts. In the absence of any violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner himself, the present writ petition Under Article 32 is not maintainable. Moreover, the present writ petition has not been filed with clean hands. Mr. Desai pointed out that the Petitioner has merely stated, in a passing manner, that he is a practicing Advocate, which is not a fair and candid statement. The Petitioner has filed the writ petition as a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister, U.P. (presently the Leader of Bahujan Samaj Party/Leader of Opposition in the U.P. Legislative Council), against whom, along with others, Respondent No. 2 has recommended action on grave charges of corruption. The Petitioner herein, Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, was the agent/representative (pairokar) of the son of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui in the complaint against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui before Respondent No. 2 and he has filed the present writ petition, as also his earlier writ petition, as a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui.

14. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, for oblique motives, is questioning the valid legislative and executive actions. The writ petition, which has been filed under the guise of redressing a public grievance, is lacking in bona fides and is an outcome of malice and ill-will, which the Petitioner nurses against Respondent No. 2 for making the reports specifically those against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. In the present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition, the Petitioner has made yet another collateral attack by questioning the title of Respondent No. 2 to the office of Lokayukta in order to stall the action/enquiry in respect of the grave charges of corruption that has been ordered pursuant to the reports of Respondent No. 2.

15. Besides, learned senior Counsel for the State submitted that the Petitioner has made a collateral attack by seeking a writ of quo warranto to enquire by what authority Respondent No. 2 is holding the office of the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh and at the same time, he has challenged the validity of that very law under which the Respondent No. 2 is holding the said office, which is impermissible under the settled law. It is the stand of the State that in a writ of quo warranto, while enquiring by what authority a person holds a public office, it is impermissible to make a collateral attack on the validity of law or statutory provision under which that office is being held. Thus, the scope of a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, by virtue of which it may be enquired by what authority a person holds a public office, but the validity of that authority cannot be questioned. In this light, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for making such a collateral attack.

16. Mr. Desai also submitted that the Bill in question was manifestly a Money Bill in view of Article 199(1) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the claim of the Petitioner is barred by the constitutional provisions, such as Articles 199(3) and 212 of the Constitution. The claim of the Petitioner that the Bill was passed only by the Legislative Assembly and not by both the Houses, is misconceived. The Petitioner has overlooked that since the Bill in question was a Money Bill, therefore, the contention that it was passed by the Legislative Assembly alone is per se misconceived. Finally, Mr. Desai submitted that Respondent No. 2 is duly holding the office of the Lokayukta under a valid law enacted by the competent legislature, viz., the Amendment Act.

17. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi reiterated the submission made by Mr. Desai and also pointed out the relevant provisions.

18. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior Counsel for Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, reiterated the contentions raised by Mr. Desai. In addition to the same, it is submitted that the real purpose of filing the writ petition and other connected matters is to stall action on the reports of Respondent No. 2 in respect of grave charges of corruption against several ex-Ministers, Government of U.P., one of whom is Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister, U.P.

19. Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the Petitioner is a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. Further, both Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his wife were members of the U.P. Legislature when the Amendment Act was enacted. Accordingly, any challenge to the said Amendment Act by Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui or his wife would not be maintainable as they, as sitting members of the State Legislature, cannot assail and disown an action of the same State Legislature.

20. Dr. Dhawan submitted that Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Lokayukta, U.P. on 16.03.2006 and he is continuing as such after 15.03.2012 under a valid law, viz., the Amendment Act, which has been duly enacted by the competent legislature. It was urged that the contentions of the Petitioner regarding Money Bill is baseless and pointed out that the earlier two amendments to the Act in the year 1981 and 1988 were also by way of Money Bills, which is concealed by the Petitioner. Further, it was submitted that the finality of the Speaker’s decision and the legislative process cannot be challenged in a Court of law.

21. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the relevant materials.

Discussion:

22. Among all the contentions/issues raised, the main challenge relates to the validity of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. In order to consider the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions. The State of U.P. has brought an Act called the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act 42 of 1975). The said Act was enacted in order to make provision for appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation on grievances and elections against Ministers, legislators and other public servants in certain cases. The Act came into force on 12.07.1977.

23. Section 2(e) defines ‘Lokayukta’ which reads as under:

“Lokayukta” means a person appointed as the Lokayukta and “Up-Lokayukta” means a person appointed as an Up-Lokayukta, u/s 3.

24. Section 3 relates to appointment of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas which reads as under:

3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas-

(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more persons to be known as the Up-Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas:

Provided that-

(a) the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and if there be no such Leader a person elected in this behalf by the members of the opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker may direct;

(b) the Up-Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas shall be appointed after consultation with the Lokayukta:

Provided further that where the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is satisfied that circumstances exist on account of which it is not practicable to consult the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with Clause (a) of the preceding proviso, he may intimate the Governor the name of any other member of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly who may be consulted under that clause instead of the Leader of the Opposition.

(2) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall before entering upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.

(3) The Up-Lokayuktas shall be subject to the administrative control of the Lokayukta and in particular for the purpose of convenient disposal of investigations under this Act, the Lokayukta any issue such general or special direction as he may consider necessary to the Up-Lokayukta:

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed to authorize the Lokayukta to question any finding conclusion or recommendation of an Up-Lokayukta.

25. Section 5 speaks about terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta which reads as under:

5. Terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta.-

(1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of six years from the date of which he enters upon his office:

Provided that,

(a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office;

(b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the manner specified in Section 6.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further employment (Whether as the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta) or in any other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh or for any employment under or office in any such local authority corporation. Government, company or society as is referred to in sub-clause *(v) of clause *(1) of Section 2.

(4) There shall be paid to the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.

26. Section 20A speaks about salary and allowances which reads as under:

20A. Expenditure to be charged on Consolidated Fund.- It is hereby declared that the salary, allowances and pension payable to or in Expenditure to be respect of the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayuktas, the charged on expenditure relating to their staff and office and other consolidated expenditure in respect of the implementation of this Act shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

27. It is highlighted by the State that under the said Act, Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.) was appointed as a Lokayukta vide notification dated 09.03.2006. It is also highlighted that since the term of Justice Mehrotra (retd.) was expired on 15.03.2012 after the completion of the period of six years under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act and no decision had been taken for the appointment of another person as the Lokayukta and also taking note of the fact that since the decision to appoint another person would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act to provide for increasing the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office. Initially, the State Government promulgated an Ordinance, namely, U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 2012). The same was replaced by the Act, namely, U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 (U.P. Act 4 of 2012). As per the said ordinance and Act, the amendment relating to Section 2 shall be deemed to have come into force on 15.03.2012 and the remaining provisions shall come into force at once. It is also relevant to refer the amendments brought in by this Amendment Act, which are as under:

Amendment of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975

2. In Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act.-

(a) for Sub-section (1) the following Sub-section shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on March 15, 2012 namely:

(1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of eight years from the date on which he enters upon his office:

Provided that the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

Provided further that,-

(a) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office:

(b) the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may be removed from office in the manner specified in Section 6.

(b) for Sub-section (3) the following Sub-section shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on March 15, 2012 namely:

(3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh

(c) After Sub-section (5) the following Sub-section shall be inserted, namely:

(6) The amendment made by the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 shall be applicable to the sitting Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas as the case may be, on the date of commencement of the said Act.

Amendment of Section 13

(5-b) After the investigation of any allegation under this Act, if the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such investigation has resulted in injustice or caused defamation to the concerned public servants, he may on their application, award compensation recording reasons therefore not exceeding the maximum amount of the cost, out of the cost as imposed on the complainant under Sub-section (5-a) to such public servant, who has suffered any loss by reason of injustice or defamation, and such compensation shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Amendment of Section 20A

For Section 20A of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:

20-A. It is hereby declared that the salary, allowances and the pensions payable to or in respect of the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayuktas, the expenditure relating to their staff and office and the amount of compensation awarded to the Public Servant under Sub-section (5-b) of Section 13 by reason of injustice or defamation and other expenditure, in respect of implementation of the provisions of this Act, shall be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.

28. We have already noted the object of bringing the ordinance and the Act for amendment of certain provisions. In order to further understand the intention of the Government for bringing such amendment, it is useful to refer the statement of “objects and reasons”, which is as under:

Statement of objects and reasons:

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975) has been enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation grievances and allegations against minister, Legislators and other public servants in certain cases. Under the said Act Shri Narendra Kishor Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta vide notification No. 40 Lo.Aa/39-4-2006-15(5) 2006, dated March 9, 2006 from the date he resumes office. Shri Mehrotra resumed his office after taking oath on March 16, 2006. The term of Shri Mehrotra as such was expired on March 15, 2012 after the completion of the period of six years under the then provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act and no decision had been taken for the appointment of another person as the Lokayukta. Since the decision to appoint another person would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act to provide for increasing the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas from six years to eight years or till his successor enters upon his office, to limit the ineligibility of the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas for further appointment under the Government of Uttar Pradesh only on ceasing to hold office as such and for making the said provisions applicable to the sitting Lokayukta or UP-Lokayuktas as the case may be, on March 15, 2012.

Since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate Legislative action was necessary, the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta or Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 2012) was promulgated by the Governor on March 22, 2012.

29. Though elaborate arguments have been made by Mr. K.K. Venugopal as well as Mr. Desai about the merits of the various recommendations/orders passed by Respondent No. 2-Lokayukta in respect of former Ministers and persons connected with the government in these matters, we are primarily concerned about the validity of the Amendment Act and continuance of Respondent No. 2 as Lokayukta even after expiry of his term.

30. The main apprehension of the Petitioner is that the Bill that led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was passed as a Money Bill in violation of Articles 197 and 198 of the Constitution of India which should have been passed by both the Houses, viz., U.P. Legislative Assembly and U.P. Legislative Council and was wrongly passed only by the U.P. Legislative Assembly. During the course of hearing, Mr. Desai, learned senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P., placed the original records pertaining to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, decision of the Speaker as well as the Governor, which we are going to discuss in the later part of our judgment.

31. Article 199 of the Constitution defines “Money Bills”, which reads as under:

199-Definition of “Money Bills”

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:

(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or Regulation of any tax;

(b) the Regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the State, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the State;

(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;

(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;

(e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;

(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of the State or the public account of the State or the custody or issue of such money; or

(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (f).

(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or Regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.

(3) If any question arises whether a Bill introduced in the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of such State thereon shall be final.

(4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted to the Legislative Council Under Article 198, and when it is presented to the Governor for assent Under Article 200, the certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is a Money Bill.

32. It is also useful to refer Article 212 which reads as under:

212-Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature

(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

33. The above provisions make it clear that the finality of the decision of the Speaker and the proceedings of the State Legislature being important privilege of the State Legislature, viz., freedom of speech, debate and proceedings are not to be inquired by the Courts. The “proceeding of the Legislature” includes everything said or done in either House in the transaction of the Parliamentary Business, which in the present case is enactment of the Amendment Act. Further, Article 212 precludes the Courts from interfering with the presentation of a Bill for assent to the Governor on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure for passing Bills, or from otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the House. To put it clear, proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that they have not been carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business. This is also evident from Article 194 which speaks about the powers, privileges of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.

34. We have already quoted Article 199. In terms of Article 199(3), the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. We are conscious of the fact that in the decision of this Court in Raja Ram Pal Vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others, , it has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny.

35. Even if it is established that there was some infirmity in the procedure in the enactment of the Amendment Act, in terms of Article 255 of the Constitution the matters of procedures do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

36. In the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others, and Mangalore Ganesh Bedi Works Vs. The State of Mysore and Another, , the Constitution Benches of this Court held that (i) the validity of an Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it offends Articles 197 to 199 and the procedure laid down in Article 202; (ii) Article 212 prohibits the validity of any proceedings in a Legislature of a State from being called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure; and (iii) Article 255 lays down that the requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction are to be regarded as a matter of procedure only. It is further held that the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law has not been strictly followed and that no Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business.

37. Besides, the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not can be raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof when the Bill is pending in the State Legislature and before it becomes an Act. It is brought to our notice that in the instant case no such question was ever raised by anyone.

38. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner has also raised another contention that the Bill was passed only by the Legislative Assembly and not by both the Houses. In other words, according to him, it was not passed by the Legislative Council and, therefore, the Amendment Act is bad.

39. Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution deals with the State Legislature. Article 168 relates to constitution of Legislatures in States. The said Article makes it clear that the State Legislature consists of the Governor, the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. After the Governor’s assent to a Bill, the consequent Act is the Act of the State Legislature without any distinction between its Houses, as projected by the Petitioner. We have also gone through the original records placed by the State and we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in passing of the Bill and the enactment of the Amendment Act, as claimed by the Petitioner.

40. Though it is claimed that the Amendment Act could not have been enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill because the Act was not enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill, as rightly pointed out, there is no such rule that if the Bill in a case of an original Act was not a Money Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can be a Money Bill. It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same was enacted by passing the Money Bill. By the said Amendment Act of 1988, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended to provide that the term of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years.

41. With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively, as rightly pointed out by the State, a deeming clause/legal fiction must be given full effect and shall be carried to its logical conclusion. As observed in K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others, , the effect of a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under those circumstances. The materials placed clearly show that the Amendment Act has been enacted by a competent legislature with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act. We are also satisfied that the aforesaid extension of the term of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta from six years to eight years is a matter of legislative policy and it cannot be narrowed down by saying that the same was enacted only for the benefit of Respondent No. 2.

42. As discussed above, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. Further, as noted earlier, Article 252 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Inasmuch as the Bill in question was a Money Bill, the contrary contention by the Petitioner against the passing of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable.

43. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Respondent No. 2 is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law enacted by the competent legislature, viz., the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. However, we direct the State to take all endeavors for selecting the new incumbent for the office of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions of the Act preferably within a period of six months from today.

44. Under these circumstances, all the writ petitions filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court are dismissed. The appeal filed by the State of U.P. and the T.C.(C) No. 74 of 2013 are disposed of on the above terms. Inasmuch as we have not gone into the merit of the decisions taken by Respondent No. 2-Lokayukta, the matters questioning those decisions which are pending in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad/Lucknow Bench are to be disposed of on merits in the light of the above conclusion upholding the Amendment Act of 2012. Accordingly, the transfer petitions are disposed of.

INSTITUTION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LOKAYUKTA/UPA-LOKAYUKTA, A.P. Vs T. RAMA SUBBA REDDY AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

( Before : S. B. Majmudar, J; N. P. Singh, J )

INSTITUTION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LOKAYUKTA/UPA-LOKAYUKTA, A.P. — Appellant

Vs.

T. RAMA SUBBA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Respondent

Civil Appeal No’s. 2020-2024 of 1986

Decided on : 13-12-1996

Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 – Section 12(3), Section 2, Section 5, Section 8
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article – 311

Counsel for Appearing Parties

K. Amareswari, K. Ram Kumar and C. Balasubramaniam, for the Appellant; K.R. Choudhary, B. Kanta Rao, A. Subba Rao, B. Parthasarathi, T.V. Ratnam and C.L. Narasimhan, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.

1.These five appeals arise on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Article 133(i) of the Constitution of India. They bring in challenge on behalf of the Institution of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta and the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively, a common judgment rendered by the said High Court in five writ petitions moved by the writ petitioners who are contesting respondents in these appeals. A common question of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta functioning under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (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 aforesaid writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and proceedings before the Lokayukta were quashed giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1986 is moved by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by similar decision rendered by the vary same Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1883 of 1986. That writ petition was moved by the contesting respondent who was Divisional Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation constituted by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Corporations Act’) which is a Central Act. The said writ petitioner challenged the proceedings before the Lokayukta resulting from a complaint filed against his working as such. He raised an identical contention that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint against him and to pass any orders thereon. This contention was accepted by the Division Bench by the aforesaid common judgment and that is how the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court has prosecuted this appeal.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 2022 of 1986 the State of Andhra Pradesh has brought in challenge the very same common decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 4562 of 1985 moved by the original writ petitioner-contesting respondent herein who was at the relevant time working as a doctor in the dispensary run by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It was contended by writ petitioner that proceedings initiated against him before the Lokayukta could not be entertained by the Lokayukta having no jurisdiction to proceed with such a complaint against him. The Division Bench upheld that contention of the respondent-writ petitioner. That has been the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by the State.

5. Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1986 is also moved by the State at Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the decision rendered by the same Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 10217 of 1985 whereunder the writ petition of the second petitioner, namely, G. Prakash was allowed. Said writ petitioner No. 2 was a clerk in Andhra Pradesh State Wool Industrial Cooperative

6. 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 Rs. 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 entertain the said complaint and to proceed with the same against him. This contention of his was accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court by the aforesaid common order. That has resulted in the present appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

8. That the aforesaid common controversy in the present cases requires to be resolved in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act, as its Preamble shows, was enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta for investigation of Administrative action taken by or on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh or certain Local and Public Authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) in certain cases and for matters connected therewith. The matters which could be investigated by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta are enumerated in Section 7 of the Act. The relevant provisions thereof read as under :

7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta : (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at behest of –

(i) a Minister or a Secretary; or

(ii) a Member of either House of the State Legislature or

(iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or

(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf , after consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.

The contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the writ petitioners concerned who are contesting respondents in these appeals are covered by the sweep of Section 7(1)(iv).

9. In order to see whether all the contesting respondents could be covered by the sweep of the aforesaid provision it will be necessary to find out whether they are public servants within the contemplation of the Act, The definition of ‘public servant’ is given by Section 2(k) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the said definition read as under :

2(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;

10. So far as the term ‘officer”is concerned it is defined by Section 2(i) as under:

2.(i) ‘officer’ means a person appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh, but does not include a person holding a post carrying a minimum scale of pay of rupees one thousand one hundred and fifty and below;

11. Section 2(a) defines ‘action’ as under :

2(a) ‘action’ means action taken by a public servant in the discharge of his functions as such public servant, by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly

A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be, may investigate any action of a public servant who falls within the scope and ambit of the definition of ‘public servant’ as found in Section 2(k).

12. In the first instance it was contended before the High Court on behalf of the appellants that these writ petitioners were public servants as defined by Section 2(k)(iii) as they were officers. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the definition of the word ‘officer’ as found in Section 2(i). Now a mere look at the said provision shows that before a person can be said to be a public servant because he is an officer it must be shown that he was appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The concerned writ petitioners were either working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation or in Co-operative Societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. They could not be said to be persons appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of State of Andhra Pradesh and they were not full fledged government servants who would be entitled to enjoy the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the attempt on the part of the appellants to attract the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta against the writ petitioners concerned on this ground was rightly found to be unsustainable by the High Court.

13. Learned senior counsel 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 Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State. In the same manner respondent-writ petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1986 S. Prakash was working in a Co-operative Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State. Thus on that count Sub-clause (5) of Clause (v) of Section 2(k) got attracted in the case of the aforesaid concerned writ petitioners in these appeals. However this conclusion of ours cannot advance the case of the appellants any further against them. The reason is obvious. Before Section 2(k)(v)(5) can apply the concerned public servant must also be shown to be working either as a Chairman or President by whatever name called who should be at the helm of affairs of the Governing Body of the Society concerned to which its Management is entrusted. So far as the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 1986 is concerned he was no doubt working as Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Union Limited. Our attention was invited by learned Counsel for respondent in the said appeal to the bye-laws of the said Union which were applicable at the relevant time when the dispute arose. The formation of the Managing Committee of the Union was to be made as per bye-law 25 and as per bye law 26 the elected members of the Managing Committee had to elect, amongst others, the following officers, namely, the President, two Vice- Presidents, General Secretary and two Joint Secretaries. Under bye-law 26 the Managing Committee had power to appoint – (i) a Chief Executive Officer and an Assistant Chief Executive Officer and to fix their pay and allowances; and; (ii) a paid Editor. These bye-laws, therefore, make it clear that a Chief Executive Officer is the creature of the Managing Committee and is not a member thereof. Obviously the President of the Managing Committee as allotted under bye-law 26 and who will head the said Managing Committee is a person different from the Chief Executive Officer. It is no doubt true that anyone who is the Chairman or President of the Governing Body or the concerned Society by whatever name as led, to whom the management of the society is entrusted would be covered by the sweep of Section 2(k)(v). But so far as respondent-Chief Executive Officer in Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 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 corporate body. The second reason is that even assuming that he was working on a post in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh he was not holding a post carrying a minimum scale of pay of Rs. 1150 or more, he was holding a post carrying a minimum scale of pay below Rs. 1150 as his pay scale was Rs. 600-900. Therefore, he was excluded from the sweep of the definition of officer as found in Clause 2(k). For both these reasons, therefore, he could not be said to be an officer. Neither Section 2(k)(iii) nor Section 2(k)(v) applied in his case. He was, therefore, outside the sweep of definition of public servant. Consequently, his action could not be investigated by the Lokayuk-ta on the combined operation of Section 7(1)(iv) and Section 2(a), and 2(i) and 2(k) of the Act as rightly held by the High Court.

15. So far as the contesting respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1986 is concerned he was a Business Manager of the Co-operative Society whose area of operation extended to whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, second part of Section 2(k)(v)(5) applied in his case. However, the main part of Section 2(k)(v)(5) did not apply as he was neither the Chairman nor the President of the Governing Body of the Committee of Management of this Society. He was not even member of the apex Managing Committee of the said Society much less it head being Chairman or President thereof. Consequently as he was a Business Manager of Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society, Hyderabad, he was outside the sweep of Section 2(k)(v). No other provision of the Act could be pressed in service by the learned senior counsel for the appellant for roping him in for the purpose of subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Therefore, the decision rendered by the High Court in the case of the aforesaid three writ petitioners in these appeals cannot be found fault with from any angle.

16. Now remains the consideration of the applicability of the Act in the case of remaining two contesting respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1986 and 2022 of 1986. So far as these two respondents are concerned learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 2(k)(v)(2) would apply provided the concerned public servant is attached to any

17. Corporation established by or under the State Act and owned and controlled by 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 such control over it. That the entire affairs of the Corporation including appointment of officers and the control of its working were in the hands of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Therefore, it would be said that it was corporation established, owned and controlled by the State. She also contended that there are many corporations or boards established by the States in exercise of powers conferred on the States by Central Acts like State Financial Corporation Act, Indian Electricity Act etc., but once they are established by the States concerned they work under their supervision and control and the Central Government would have noting to do with them. That if a view is taken that public servants working in such corporations are outside the purview of Lokayukta functioning under the Act laudable purpose of appointing such Lokayuktas to apt as Ombudsmen and vigilance authorities for supervising and controlling their actions and bringing them to book would get frustrated and, therefore, a more beneficial construction’may be placed on the aforesaid provision with a view to subserve the purpose and legislative intent underlying the enactment of this provision which is for the benefit of the society at large and any construction which frustrates the legislative intent underlying this beneficial provision should not be resorted to.

18. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that on the express language of Section 2(k)(v)(2) any corporation which is established by or under the State Act would require the establishment of such corporation only in the light of State Act. That the phrase ‘under the State Act’ cannot be divorced or isolated from the preceding phraseology employed by the Legislature, namely, ‘any Corporation established by or under.’ That the phrase ‘by or under’ has a direct nexus .with the State Act. For highlighting this legislative intent our attention was invited to identical phraseology employed by the Legislature in the same Section 2(k) in Clauses (iii) and (iv) as well as Sub-clause (2) of Clause (iy),

19. In our view the aforesaid rival contentions canvassed by learned Counsel for the contesting, parties regarding the applicability of Section 2(k)(v)(2) would have required closer scrutiny by us but for the fact that the concerned respondent-writ petitioners in these appeals would 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 appellant-State, as we will presently see this question is not required to be resolved in the present proceedings.

20. Even assuming that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in which the concerned respondents in these two appeals are working at the relevant time would be covered by the sweep of the latter part of Sub-clause (2) of Clause (v) of Section 2(k), still the question remains whether any of them was a Chairman or President of the Governing Body to which the Management of this Corporation was entrusted. So far as the respondent-writ petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1986 is concerned at the relevant time he was working as a Division Manager. A Divisional Manager working in a Division cannot be said to be in charge of the Managing Committee which is the apex Managing body of the State Road Transport Corporation. The Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Corporation would be very much above in the hierarchy as compared to the Divisional Manager who has to work even under the Central Manager. Consequently the said respondent-writ petitioner cannot be said to be at the helm of affairs of the Managing Committee of the State Road Transport Corporation. He would, therefore, not be covered by the first part of Section 2(k)(v)(2) on that score. So far as respondent-writ petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 2022 of 1986 is concerned his case is on a still stronger footing as at the relevant time he was working as a doctor attached to the dispensary run by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He had nothing to do with the Management of the Corporation from any viewpoint. Consequently he would obviously not be covered by the sweep of Section 2(k)(v)(2) of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that actions of all these respondent-writ petitioners could not be looked into by the Lokayukta under the relevant provisions of the Act.

21. Before parting with these matters, it may be necessary to note that the legislative intent behind the enactment.is to see that the public servants covered by the sweep of the Act should be answerable for their actions as such to the Lokayukta who is to ‘be a Judge or a retired Chief Justice of the High Court and in appropriate cases to the Upa-Lokayukta who is a District Judge of Grade-I as recommended by the Chief Justice of the 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 in tact. 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 further inquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such public servant from his office and for making him ineligible for being elected to any office etc. Even if it may be lawful for the Government to act on such recommendation, it is nowhere provided that the Government will be bound to comply with the recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. The question may arise in a properly instituted public interest litigation as to whether the provision of Section 12(3) of the Act implies a power coupled with duty which can be enforced1 by writ of mandamus by the High Court or by writ of any other competent court but apart from such litigations and uncertainty underlying the results thereof, it would be more appropriate for the legislature itself to make a clear provision for due compliance with the report of Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta so that the public confidence in the working of the system does not get eroded and these institutions can effectively justify their creation under the statute.

22. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that all the original writ petitioners whose writ petitions came to be allowed by the High Court were rightly held to be outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta functioning under the Act. These appeals are liable to fail ‘ and are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs in all these appeals.


(1996) 11 JT 266 : (1996) 9 SCALE 357 : (1997) 9 SCC 42 : (1996) Sup10 SCR 49 : (1996) 7 SLR 145

TATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER Vs HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAMESH AMRITLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS

(2013) AIR(SC) 1563 : (2013) 3 SCALE 531 : (2013) 4 SCC 47 : (2013) 2 SCC(Cri) 298 : (2013) 2 SCC(L&S) 161 : (2013) 1 SCR 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

( Before : Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J; Balbir Singh Chauhan, J )

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Appellant

Vs.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAMESH AMRITLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent

Review Petition (C) No’s. 362-363 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No’s. 8814-8815 of 2012

Decided on : 14-03-2013

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 356
Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 – Section 3(1)
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 – Section 3, Section 3(2)
Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 – Section 3, Section 3(1)

Cases Referred

State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) and Others, (2013) 1 AD 325 : AIR 2013 SC 693 : (2013) 1 JT 276 : (2013) 1 RCR(Civil) 610 : (2013) 1 SCALE 7 : (2013) 3 SCC 1 : (2013) 1 SCC(L&S) 490 : (2013) AIRSCW 671 : (2013) 1 Supreme 33
Justice K.P. Mohapatra Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and Others, AIR 2002 SC 3578 : (2002) 8 JT 101

ORDER

1. The original Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8815/2012 have filed the present review petitions seeking review of our judgment dated 02.01.2013.

2. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various grounds raised in the review petition. On a detailed reading of the grounds, it is quite apparent that the provocation for filing these review petitions is mainly the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna and Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 197-199 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos. 15658-15660 of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta u/s 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the said judgment, the judgment under review reported as State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) and Others, was also noted and the clear distinction as between Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Section 3(1) of Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 was spelt out.

3. By referring to the above later decision in the forefront, the sum and substance of the grounds raised for review herein is three-fold, namely,

1) there is divergence of views taken by this Court in the impugned judgment and in the later judgment as regards the interpretation of language of Section 3 in both the legislations,

2) the role of the constitutional authorities involved in the consultation process and;

3) regarding primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice vis-a-vis the Chief Minister of the concerned State.

4. At the very outset we find that none of the above grounds have any substance. Since, we find the whole basis for the review by relying upon the later judgment of this Court, it will be necessary to highlight the clear distinction as between the judgment under review and the said later decision of this Court.

5. The later decision of this Court considered the question about the primacy of the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka in making appointment to the post of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of power conferred on him u/s 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as “Karnataka Act”). Section 3 of the Karnataka Act reads as under:

3. Appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta

(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations and enquiries in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Governor shall appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta and one or more persons to be known as the Upa-lokayukta or Upa-lokayuktas.

2 (a) A person to be appointed as the Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or that of the Chief Justice of a High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

(b) A person to be appointed as an Upa-Lokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of the Judge of a High Court and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

(Emphasis added)

(3) xxxxxxxxxx

6. A reading of the Sub-clauses 2(a)&(b) disclose that it is for the Chief Minister to advise the Governor for appointment of a Lokayukta after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman of Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. While, as per the provision itself, it is for the Chief Minister to advice the Governor, the collegium for consultation consists of as many as five other members, including the Chief Justice of the High Court. The same is the procedure for appointment of Upa-Lokayukta u/s 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Act.

7. In the later judgment of this Court, the above statutory stipulation, about the primary role to be played by the Chief Minister in advising the Governor and the collegium of consultation to be made, has been specifically discussed and concluded to the following effect in paragraph 37:

…Therefore, for the purpose of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta all the five consultees are common. The appointment has to be made by the Governor on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with those five dignitaries.

8. As far as the Gujarat Lokayukta Act is concerned, the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act is relevant which is to the following effect:

3(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with provisions of this Act, the Governor shall, by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as the Lokayukta.

Provided that the Lokayukta shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and except where such appointment is to be made at a time when the Legislative Assembly of the State of Gujarat has been dissolved or a Proclamation under Articles 356 of the Constitution is in operation in the State of Gujarat, after consultation also with the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, or if, there be no such Leader, a person elected in this behalf by the members of the Opposition in that House in such manner as the Speaker may direct.

(Emphasis added)

9. In the light of the specific stipulations contained in the proviso, it was held in the impugned judgment that Section 3(1) read along with proviso envisages the appointment of Lokayukta by the Governor based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat who in turn to consult with the Leader of Opposition, if the Assembly is in position and in its absence even such consultation by the Chief Justice with the Leader of Opposition is also dispensed with.

10. This distinction, as between the Karnataka Act and Gujarat Act, was specifically noted in the later judgment in paragraph 48, which is to the following effect:

…Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 in State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) and Others, Interpreting that provision this Court held that the views of the Chief Justice have primacy in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta in the State of Gujarat. Every Statute has, therefore, to be construed in the context of the scheme of the Statute as a whole, consideration of context, it is trite, is to give meaning to the legislative intention according to the terms in which it has been expressed.

11. The later judgment has also considered similar such provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, Assam Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act 1985, Bihar Lokayukta Act 1973, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhyadesh, 2002, Delhi Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act 1995, Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986, Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 and Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999 and held that each State has adopted different eligibility criteria, method of selection, consultative procedures etc., in the matter of appointment of Lokayuktas and Upa-Lokayuktas in their respective States.

12. Apart from referring to the similar provisions relating to appointment of Lokayukta in the above referred to enactments, the later judgment also noted that in the States of Assam, Delhi and in particular Gujarat, the Chief Ministers can participate in the process and could express their views and that the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts alone have PRIMACY in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. It was further noted that while in the States of Chhattisgarh, Haryana etc., the appointment is made by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister while in the State of Kerala under the Act the Chief Justice is not even a consultee at all. It, therefore, concluded as under in paragraph 48:

…Legislatures of the various States, in their wisdom, have, therefore, adopted different sources, eligibility criteria, methods of appointment etc. in the matter of appointment of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas.

13. As regards the process of consultation, it was again held in the later judgment that consultation is not a formality but should be meaningful, effective and primacy of opinion is always vested with the High Court or the Chief Justice of the State High Court or the collegium of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, as the case may be, when a person has to hold a judicial office and discharge functions akin to judicial functions.

14. After holding so, by referring to Section 3(1) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act which is in pari materia with the Gujarat Act, this Court by making specific reference to the decision which came up to this Court in Justice K.P. Mohapatra Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Nayak and Others, has held as under in paragraph 57:

57. The High Court, in the instant case has, placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in K.P. Mohapatra (supra) and took the view that consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory and his opinion will have primacy. Above judgment has been rendered in the context of the appointment of Orissa Lokpal u/s 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. The proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act says that the Lokpal shall be appointed on the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa and the Leader of the Opposition, if there is any. Consultation with the Chief Justice assumes importance in view of the proviso. The Leader of the Opposition need be consulted, if there is one. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, only the Chief Justice remains as the sole consultee. In that context and in view of the specific statutory provision, it has been held that the consultation with the Chief Justice assumes importance and his views has primacy.

(Emphasis added)

15. In the light of the clear distinction in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act and the Orissa Act, it was held that the judgment of this Court in K.P. Mohapatra (supra) was inapplicable while construing the provisions of the Karnataka Act, since, the language employed are not pari materia. It will be appropriate to state that the provisions of the Gujarat Act and the Orissa Act are identical in so far as it related to the consultation process is concerned and, therefore, it was categorically held that the role of the Chief Justice was primary by virtue of the specific provision contained in the Act. In the light of specific provision contained in Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Act in the later judgment, it was held as under in paragraph 62:

Section 3(2)(a) and (b) when read literally and contextually admits of no doubt that the Governor of the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister and that the Chief Justice of the High Court is only one of the consultees and his views have no primacy. The Governor, as per the statute, can appoint only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister and not on the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice or any of the consultees.

16. In the light of the above distinctive features in the Karnataka Act and in the Gujarat Act which have been clearly spelt out in the impugned judgment under review and in the judgment of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) (supra), the ground raised in these review petitions which have been dealt with in detail in the judgment under review and concluded by adducing adequate reasons, we are convinced that no case for review is made out and there is no apparent error in the impugned judgment. These review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Public functionary

“Public functionary” is defined in Section-2(m) as under:

2 (m) “public functionary’ means a person who is or has been at any time-

(i) the Chief Minister or a Minister

(ii) a Member of Legislative Assembly;

(iii) a person having the rank of Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:

(iv) a Chairman, Vice Chairman or Managing Director or a Member of a Board of Directors (by whatever name they be called) in respect of-

(1) an Apex Co-operative Society or any Co-operative Society constituted or registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, which is subject to the control of the Government;

(2) a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in connection with the affairs, and is under the control of the Government.

(3) a Local Authority established under any law in relation to Delhi;

Provided that the provisions of this Act shall not be applicable to any authority of a Local Authority constituted under an enactment related to entry No. 18 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution;

(4) a Corporation engaged in connection with the affairs, and under the control, of the Government.

(5) Any Commission or body set up by the Government which is owned and controlled by it;

(v) a Member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as defined in clause 2(27) of the Municipal Corporation Act,1957 (as amended in 1993):

A conjoint reading of Section-2(b), Section-2(m) and Section-7 would clearly indicate that the Lokayukta has power to proceed to inquire against public functionaries in respect of those allegations, nature whereof is specified in Section-2(b). Thus before he could assume jurisdiction, following three ingredients are to be satisfied:

  1. The person is a `public functionary as defined in Section-2(m) of the Act.
  2. Public functionary is the one in relation to whom either the President or Lt.Governor is the Competent Authority.

  3. Allegation in relation to the said public functionary in capacity is the one specified in Section-2(b) of the Act.


Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995

Lokayukta

It is well-known that the idea of establishment of Office of Lokpal and Lokayuktas came from Justitio Ombudsman, commonly called, Just Ombudsman, prevalent in European countries where such Office was established as far back as in early Nineteenth Century. However, the scope and power of the ombudsman is different in different countries. In India the desirability of the establishment of ombudsman type institution was repeatedly stressed in 1960s and thereafter. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its Report on “Problems of Redressal of Citizens’ Grievances” submitted in October,1966, surveyed the existing remedial methods for redressal of the Citizens’ grievances and allegations in connection with administrative corruption, maladministration, delinquencies, lapses, failures, improprieties, and lack of desired standards of administrative probity, propriety and efficiency.

The ARC noted the widely prevalent corruption in the administration and administrative inefficiency and unresponsiveness to the public. It treated the problem at two levels: (i) lapses and improprieties committed by the Ministers and their immediate subordinates, that is, Secretaries to the Government and their aides; and (ii) the delinquencies committed by the lower administrative authorities and public servants. It is not necessary to state here, in detail, the recommendations of ARC. It would be sufficient to note that these recommendations were widely discussed and commented upon. Ultimately, the Government even tentatively accepted the same and Lokpal Bills were introduced in the Parliament a number of times but no enactment could be passed at that time. However, some progress was made at State level with the establishment of ombudsman type Lokayuktas in certain States including Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Delhi also passed, ultimately, Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995.

Lokpal Laws in In India

It extends to the whole of India and it shall apply to all public servants in and outside India.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Lokpal to include Prime Minister, Ministers, members of Parliament,
Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of Central Government.

Complaint to Lokpal

The Lokpal shall not inquire or investigate into any complaint, if the complaint is made after the expiry of a period of seven years from the date on which the offence  mentioned in such complaint is alleged to have been committed [S. 53]

The Lokpal shall function as the final appellate authority in respect of appeals arising out of any other law for the time being in force providing for delivery of public services and redressal of public grievances by any public authority in cases where the decision contains findings of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Action 

Where, after the conclusion of the investigation, the findings of the Lokpal disclose
the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by a public
servant referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 14, the Lokpal may file a case in the Special Court and shall send a copy of the report together with its findings to the competent authority.

Punishment for the false complaint to Lokpal

whoever makes any false and frivolous or vexatious complaint under this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Lokayukta for State

Every State shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act.

Department

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

Connected Laws

The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixteenth Amendment) Bill, 2011

THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 2013

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Constitution of Search Committee under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

Search Committee Rules

Lokpal-Advertisement

CONNECTED LAWS

1 Manual of Office Procedure
2 Record Retention Schedule as Prescribed by D/o Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances
3 General Financial Rules, 2005
4 All India Services (AIS) Manuals
5 The AIS (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007
6 Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
7 Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
8 Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988
9 Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 (Notification dated 03/05/1988)
10 Central Civil Services (Leave Rules)
11 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Bringing Out A Revised/Updated Edition
12 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Updated)
13 Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990
14 Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 2002
15 IAS Promotion Guide Lines
16 IPS (Appointment by Limited Competetive Examination) Regulations, 2011
17 IPS (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2011
18 IAS (Pay) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008
19 IFS (Pay) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008
20 IPS (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008
21 The IAS (PAY) Rules, 2007
22 The IFS (PAY) Rules, 2007
23 The IPS (PAY) Rules, 2007
24 Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962
25 Central Secretariat Service Rules, 2009
26 Central Secretariat Clerical Service Rules
27 CSSS Rules, 1969
28 CSSS (PPS Grade) Rules, 1989
29 CSSS (Senior PPS Grade) Rules, 2000
30 Brochure On Grant Of Casual Leave & Special Casual Leave
31 Brochure On Casual Labourers
32 Brochure On Post Retirement Commercial Employment

33 Revised Scheme for Redeployment of Surplus Staff , 1989
34 All India Services Indemnity ACT
35 Administrative Tribunals
36 The Public Servants Inquiries ACT
37 The Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of witnesses and Production of Documents) ACT
38 Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000
39 Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
40 Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
41 Draft Public Services Bill – 2007
42 The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010
43 CVC Act 2003
44 CVC Act Amendment
45 Gazette Notification(CVC)
46 PC (Prevention Of Corruption) ACT, 1988
47 The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
48 The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2014 No. 28 of 2014
49 The Central Vigilance Commission (Staff) Rules, 2007
50 The Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014
51 RTI ACT, 2005
52 RTI Rules, 2012
53 Compendium of Welfare Programmes Instruction
54 Administrative Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Government Officers
55 Fundamental Rules (FR 11 and FR 52,53 and 54)
56 Extracts of provisions in F.R. 56
57 Compilation of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (Part-I)
58 Brochure on JCM & CA
59 CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993
60 Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Updated Version of the Bare Rules.

Capture