Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against a common judgment in five writ petitions. The original writ petitioners, who were contesting respondents in the Supreme Court, included employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and co-operative societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Complaints were filed against them before the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta regarding their functioning in various capacities. The Lokayukta rejected their preliminary objections that it lacked jurisdiction. The writ petitioners then approached the High Court, which allowed their petitions and quashed the proceedings before the Lokayukta, holding that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Institution of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta filed the present appeals challenging the High Court's decision. The core legal issue was whether the writ petitioners fell within the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, so as to be subject to investigation under Section 7 of the Act. The appellants first contended that the writ petitioners were officers under Section 2(k)(iii) read with Section 2(i). The Supreme Court examined Section 2(i), which defines 'officer' as a person appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that employees of the Road Transport Corporation and co-operative societies were not appointed to such posts and were not full-fledged government servants entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, the attempt to bring them within Section 2(k)(iii) as officers was unsustainable. The appellants alternatively argued that the co-operative society employees were covered by Section 2(k)(v)(5), which includes every Chairman or President of the governing body of a co-operative society with area of operation extending to the whole State or not less than a district. The Court agreed that the concerned societies had statewide area of operation, but held that Section 2(k)(v)(5) required the person to be a Chairman or President of the governing body, not merely an employee such as a Chief Executive Officer, clerk, or business manager. The Court noted that the bye-laws of the co-operative union were relevant to show that the Chief Executive Officer was not at the helm of affairs of the governing body. Consequently, the co-operative society employees were not public servants within the meaning of Section 2(k)(v)(5). The extracted portion of the judgment did not contain the final operative order, but the Supreme Court's analysis clearly indicated concurrence with the High Court's reasoning that the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction over the writ petitioners. The Court relied on the definitions of 'officer', 'public servant', and 'action' under the Act, and concluded that the Lokayukta could investigate only those persons who met the statutory definition of public servant. Since the writ petitioners did not satisfy the definition, the Lokayukta proceedings were rightly quashed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Lokayukta Jurisdiction - Public Servant Definition - Officer - Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, Sections 2(k)(iii), 2(i), 7(1)(iv) - Employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and co-operative societies were not appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State; therefore, they were not officers covered as public servants under Section 2(k)(iii). The High Court was correct in holding that Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction on this ground. Held that the attempt to attract jurisdiction by treating such employees as officers was unsustainable. (Paras not numbered) B) Administrative Law - Lokayukta Jurisdiction - Co-operative Society Employees - Public Servant Definition - Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, Section 2(k)(v)(5) - Even though co-operative societies with statewide area fell under Section 2(k)(v)(5), the concerned employee must be Chairman or President of the governing body entrusted with management. A Chief Executive Officer, clerk, or business manager was not such Chairman/President; hence they were excluded. Held that mere employment in a qualifying co-operative society did not confer public servant status for Lokayukta investigation. (Paras not numbered)
Issue of Consideration
Whether employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and co-operative societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 fall within the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, so as to confer jurisdiction on Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta to investigate complaints against them.
Final Decision
The High Court had allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Lokayukta proceedings. The Supreme Court's final operative order was not included in the extracted text, but the Court's reasoning indicated concurrence with the High Court's rejection of Lokayukta jurisdiction over the writ petitioners.
Law Points
- Lokayukta jurisdiction under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act
- 1983 extends only to public servants as defined in Section 2(k)
- employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and co-operative societies are not officers under Section 2(i) as they are not appointed to a public service or post in connection with affairs of State
- Section 2(k)(v)(5) requires the person to be Chairman or President of governing body of co-operative society
- not merely an employee or executive officer
