IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1537 OF 2009 (MS) Lajja Ram ………….Petitioner. Versus Imran & another. …………….Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 1483 OF 2009 (MS) Kunwar Pal Singh and another. ………..Petitioners. Versus Lokayukta Uttarakhand and another. ……..Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for petitioners. None appears for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the respondents. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Punidr, Advocate for petitioners. Since common question is involved in both the writ petitions, these writ petitions are being disposed of with a common judgment. The petitioners in this case have challenged the order of the “Lok Ayukta” dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure – 3 to the writ petitions), whereby the “Lok Ayukta” has recommended that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioners under the Uttaranchal Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 2002. It has further been directed that Ravindra Mohan and Sanjeev 2 Sharma also have a role to play in the entire episode, therefore, they should be transferred to another district. Clearly the “Lok Ayukta” has such powers under Section 12 of the U.P. Lok Ayukta and Up-Lok Ayuktas Act, 1975 (From hereinafter referred to as the Act). What has been done is only a recommendation for a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners. It is expected that the Competent Authority to whom such a recommendation has been made shall proceed in accordance with law and thereafter intimate the Lok Ayukta of the action taken thereon. This Court finds no anomaly in the order of the “Lok Ayukta” dated 10.8.2009 and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further directed that the competent authority after taking action as recommended by the “Lok Ayukta” shall also intimate the “Lok Ayukta” about the result of such proceeding, which is in fact a statutory provision, under Section 12 of the Act. It is needless to say that while taking disciplinary action against the petitioners, the competent authorities shall abide by the letter and spirit of the Rules under which said proceedings are being initiated and will give a full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Since this Court finds no anomaly in the orders impugned before this Court, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and is presently being dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.12.2009 Rathour