Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a government order granting funds for expansion works at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, specifically for erecting two generator sets. The petitioner, Ch. Rama Rao, was required to submit a report on estimates, and tenders were called. The initial estimate for one generator set was around Rs.15 lakhs, but it was subsequently increased to Rs.21 lakhs per set. Following an anonymous complaint to the Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, constituted under Section 3 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, the Lokayukta conducted a preliminary investigation and issued an interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the two generators. By an interim report dated April 6, 1996, the Lokayukta directed the Government either to suspend the petitioner or transfer him and to take similar action against the Superintendent Engineer. The petitioner challenged these orders in writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, also challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on April 23, 1996, upholding the validity of the provisions and declining to interfere with the interim report, holding that it had no jurisdiction to go into its merits. The petitioner then filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not press the constitutional challenge, stating that similar matters were pending in another appeal. The only contention seriously advanced was that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to take action and that the procedure adopted was contrary to Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before submitting the report. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that under Section 7, the Lokayukta has power to investigate, and under Section 7(3), the Lokayukta can take suo motu action by recording reasons. The Court interpreted Section 10 to mean that preliminary verification must be conducted in private and in confidentiality, and no notice or opportunity is required at that stage; the object is to secure prima facie evidence and prevent suppression or destruction of material. Only when the Lokayukta proceeds to regular investigation after recording satisfaction under Section 10(1)(b) is an opportunity required to be given to the public servant. The Court further held that the Lokayukta is empowered to submit a preliminary report recommending suspension or transfer pending further investigation to ensure smooth enquiry and prevent tampering or destruction of records. Accordingly, the Lokayukta was justified in not issuing notice or giving opportunity at the preliminary verification stage. The special leave petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Statutory Provisions - Not Pressed - A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, Sections 3, 4, 7, 12 - Challenge to constitutional validity as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226, 311 of Constitution was not pressed before Supreme Court as similar matters were pending in another appeal; Held that the special leave petitions proceeded only on procedural grounds (Paras 1-2). B) Administrative Law - Lokayukta Jurisdiction - Suo Motu Investigation - A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, Section 7 - Lokayukta empowered under Section 7(1) and (2) to investigate; Section 7(3) enables suo motu action notwithstanding powers of Up-Lokayukta, provided reasons are recorded for divesting Up-Lokayukta's power; Held that Lokayukta had jurisdiction to take action (Paras 2). C) Administrative Law - Preliminary Verification - No Prior Notice or Opportunity - A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, Sections 10, 12 - Section 10(2)(a) requires preliminary verification to be conducted in private and confidential; object is to secure prima facie evidence and prevent suppression or destruction of material; Held that no notice or opportunity is required at preliminary verification stage; opportunity is required only at regular investigation after recording satisfaction under Section 10(1)(b) (Paras 3). D) Administrative Law - Interim Report - Suspension or Transfer Recommendation - A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983, Section 12 - Lokayukta empowered to submit preliminary report recommending suspension or transfer of public servant pending further investigation; object is to ensure smooth enquiry and prevent tampering or destruction of records; Held that such recommendation without prior notice was justified (Paras 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983 are ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of the Constitution; whether Lokayukta had jurisdiction to take suo motu action under Section 7(3); whether preliminary verification and report under Sections 10 and 12 required prior notice or opportunity to the public servant; whether High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the interim report
Final Decision
Special leave petitions dismissed. Lokayukta justified in not issuing notice or giving opportunity at preliminary verification. Power to submit preliminary report recommending suspension or transfer pending investigation upheld.
Law Points
- Lokayukta has jurisdiction to take suo motu action under Section 7(3) of A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act
- 1983 by recording reasons
- preliminary verification under Sections 10 and 12 must be conducted in confidentiality and does not require prior notice or opportunity to public servant
- opportunity is required only at regular investigation after satisfaction under Section 10(1)(b)
- Lokayukta can recommend suspension or transfer pending investigation to ensure smooth enquiry and prevent tampering or destruction of records
- constitutional challenge to provisions not pressed
