AF^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUI W,P. (Cl No.SOSO OF 2009 ^ PETITSONER Lakshman Chaturvedl Vs RESPONDENT Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog A ORDER ^ ^ PQST ON /^-NOVEMBER.IOQ? Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Ci No.5050 OF 2009 PETITIONER RiESPONDENT Vs Lakshman Chaturvedi, S/o Late M.P. Chaturvedl, aged about 65 years, Vice Chancelior, Guru Ghasidas Vlshwavidyalaya, (Central Unlversity), Koni, Bliaspur (Chhattisgarh) Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog. a Statutory Authority constltuted Under Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhinjyam, 2002, having Its offics at Gandhl Chowk, through Its Secretary, Raipur (Chhatttsgarh) Present: -. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petltioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. O R DE R (Pa'ssed on j^^ovember, 2©09) Dhlrendra Mishra. J 01. The petitloner has filed the. Instant petition and prayed for quashing of •'the impugned communications of Annexure P/1-& P/2 issued by the respondent-Lok Aayog whereby the petitioner has been dlrected to submit reply iatest by 28th August, 2009, faiiing which jt shall be deemed 'that the petitsoner has nothing to say, and has further prayed for dlrection to th9 respondent to •supp!y each and every document, records and materiais submitted by the compiainant, as aiso coliected from the •Unlverslty during inqulry of compiaint against the petitioner. 02. Briefly stated, grievance of the petitloner js that he was Vice Chancellor of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukia ^—^"^ vw ^:. ^ [f- -^: 03. UnlversJty (hereinafter referred to as "Untverslty") at the reievant time. Presentfy, he is Vlce Chancelior of Guru Ghasldas Unlverslty (now Centrai University), Bjlaspur. A compiaint was filsd by one Mr. Victor Ekka, Dy. Reglstrar agalnst the petltioner under Section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Act, 2002 {jn short "the Act"). The compjainant annexed documents runnlng Into 124 pages along wlth the complaint. The Lok Aayog got the compjajnt enquired Into wlthout notice to the petltloner and thereaftsr, the petjtioner was served with a notics on 4.5.2009 ieveilng as many as nine charges against him along with incompiete copy of the compiaint wlthout annexing the documents filed with the said comp!aint. The petitioner requested the Lok Aayog for suppiy of documents flled aiong with the compiaint and the documents, which were suppl'red by the University. However, the petjtioner was advlsed to get those documents from the University as belng done by one Mr. K.K. Chandrakar. HIs further request for supply of documents was aga.sn turned down vide Annexure P/2 and he has been finaily directed to appear on 28.8.2009 before the Ayog. •iVIr. Sanjay K. Agrawai; Searned counse! for the petitloner, wouid submjt that the documents annexed with the oompiaint form integra! part of the complaint and ths documents provided by the University to the Lok Aayog and reiled upon by it to take action against the petitloner aiso form part of the compiai.nt. The petitioner is entltied to have copies of the above documents. The proceeding before the Lok Aayog is a judlcial proceeding by virtue of Sectlon 10(3) of the Act. A conjoint reading of Sectlon 9 of the Act read with Ruie 17 of th.e (N, l 'l^ I^NII^-, Chhattlsgarh Lok Aayog (Investigatlon) Rules, 2002 (for brevity "the Ruies") clearly indicates that In a proceeding initlated by the Lok Aayog, prlncipSes of naturai justice are to be strictiy adhered to as recommendations of the LoR Aayog wlj! have civil consequences against the petitioner. The petitloner would not be able to reply to the charges'merely by readlng the charges without the documents, on the basls of which the charges have been ieveisd. Section 14(1) of the Act only provldes that any information obtalned In the course of an enqulry by the Lok Aayog in respect of the complaint and evldence recorded or coliected In connection with such information, shalS be treated as confldential and thls confidentiailty wlll not be appiicabie for suppiy of copy of the complajnt and the documents filed along with the compjaint. Rebutting the contention of the respondent that evjdence gathered during enquiry Is confidential under Sectlon 14 of the Act, it was argued that the respondent has itself fiied the documents gathered during enquiry as Annexure R/1 to R/3 and therefore, refusai to supp!y copies of those documents on the ground of confldentiality, is a msre pretext. So far as the other argument that from the documents of Annexure R/1 to R/3, It is evsdent that t'ne petitloner was aware about the compialnt and the reply filed by the Unlversity was processed by hlmself as the then Vice Chanceiior of the University, is concerned, the • same would not absoive the respondent from furnishing the materiai coilected during enqulry to afford the petitioner an /"' ^ ^ '\i ' '%^'. \ "'s'; \».. •"-/'~' € opportunity to effectivsjy repiy to the charges leveled against hlm- 04. On the other hand, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counse! for the respondent, vehemently argued that the petltloner was very much aware about the notlce Issued to the Universlty and each and every exerclse thereafter vi/as done under hls signature. The same wou!d be refiected from the documents of Annexure R/1 to R/3 flled by the respondent. Thus, the petltloner has approached this Court with unciean hands and the petition deserves to be dlsmlssed on this ground. it was further argued that the mode of functioning of the Lok Ayog Is not as such 3 judlclal proceedlng, but it is a fact finding enquiry. Referrlng to various provislons' of the Act and the Rules, it was argued that Section 14(1) of the Act cieariy stlpulates that Information contaming documents, obtained by the Lok Aayog wouid be confidentiaj. Section 14(2) is attracted oniy when the punitlve action is taken against the charged publlc servant on the report submitted by the Lok Aayog to the competent authority. Referring to Ru!e 17 of the Rutes, it was argued that this rule provides for the procedure to be followed during investlgation by the Lok Aayog. This rule very speciflcally stipulates that the Lok Aayog is obElged to serve upon the pubic servant elther a copy of the compialnt or a statement of Imputations. A bare perusal of this ru!e makes It clear that the pub!ic servant cannot cia'im even a copy of the complaint as a matter of right, whereas in the instant case, the respondent has served a statement of Imputations along with copy of the complaint upon the petltloner. The statement of Imputations is qulte li! elaborative and detailed and the same ts in absoiute In compiiance of Ruie 17. 05. S have heard Searned counsel for the partles. 06. The only question to be consldered In this petltlon is - whether the respondent/Lok Aayog is.'obliged to provlde copies of the documents annexed wlth the complalnt and copies of the matertal evidence coliected during enquiry on the basis of such complalnt at the stage of Inquiry under Sectlons 9 & 10 of the Act? 07. Before considering the rival contentlons of the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provlsions of the Act and the RuSes. 08. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Lok Aayog to enqulre Into any complaint of mlsconduct agalnst the Chief Minister, a !V!inister or any publjc servant. Section 8 deals wlth the provlsions relatlng to compiaints. !t provides that every compiaint jnvoiving a mlsconduct is to be made in such form prescribed and shalS be accompanied by the deposlt of certain fee and affidavlt of the complalnant. Sections 9, 11 & 14of the Act read as under: "9. Procetfyre f"n respecf of mquines:- The Lok Aayog shali in cases to be conducted before it declde the procedure to be foilowed for maksng the inquiry, and In so doing ensure that the principies of naturai justlce are satlsfied. 11. RQports of i.Qh Aayog:- (1) !f after Inqulry of any action in respect of which a compiaint has been received the Lok /Aayog ;'s of the opinion that the comp!aint Is estabSlshed, it shal! by a report in wnting, communicate its f'indings and recommendations aiong wsth tfie reievant documents and other svidence to the competent authonty. -— ,/ Expianation:- Opinion of Lok Aayog In relatlon to any compfaint, incSuding a decisson, report, finding or conclusion thereon, means the opinion of the majority of Its members. (2) The compet&nt authority shail examlne the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and intimate to the Lok Aayog within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the actlon taken or proposed to be taken thereon. (3) !f the Lok Aayog is satisfled with the action taken or proposed to be taken on its recommendstions, it shall cfose the case under Informatlon to the compfainant, the pubiic servant and the competent authority, and if sn any case the Lok Aayog /'s of the opinion that tha casa so deserves, it may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and &lso Inform the compiainant. (4) The Lok Aayog shalf present to the Governor, annually, a consofidated report on the performance of Its functions under thls Adhiniyam. (5) !f In any specsai report under sub- sectlon (3) or the annual report under sub- sectlon (4), any adverse comment Is made against any public servant, such report shai! also contain the substance of the defence adduced by such pubilc servant and the comment made thereon by or on behalf of the State Government or the reievant competent authority, as the case may be. (6) On receipt of a speciaf report under sub-section (3) or the annua! report under sub-section (4), the Governor shaii cause 3 copy theraof together with an expianatory memorandum to be laid before the State Leglslative Assembly. (7) Subject to the provisions of Section 9 of this Adhiniyam, the Lok Aayog may at Its discretion make avaifabie from time to fime and in such manner and to such persons as it may deem appropriate, the substance of cases ciosed or otherwise 1^^^. y.- <^ 7 disposed of by it which may in its opinion be of genera! pubiic, academic or professiona! interest. 14. Secrecy of informatlon:- (1) Any information obtained in the course of an Inqulry by the Lok Aayog, members of fts staff or a person or agency whose services are utsiized by the Lok Aayog for conducting inquin'es in respect of any comp!aint, and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall be treated as confidential. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shail apply to the disclosure of information or particulars:- (a) for purpose of the enqulry or In any report to be made ihereon or for any act'iGn or proceedlngs to be taken on such report, or (b) for purposes of any proceeding for an offence under the Official Secrets Act, f.923 (Act No.19 of 1923), or any offence of giving or fabncatlng false evldence under the Indian Penai Code or for the purpose of any proceedings under Sectlon 15 of this Adhiniyam, or (c) for such other purposes as may be prescribed. (3) An officer or other authonty prescribed In this baha!f may give notlce In writing to the Lok Aayog with respect to any document or informatlon specified in the notice or any dass of documents so specified, that in the opinion of the State Government th@ disdosure of the documQnts or informatlon of documents, or informatson of that ciass so specified, would be contrary to public interest; and wh&re such notlce is given, nothing In this Adhinlyam shail be construed as suthonzing or requinng the Pramukh Lokayukt or a Lokayukt or any member of the staff of Lok Aayog to communicate to any person any document or information specified in the notice or any document or snformation of a class so specifled." .' A '^^-m fe... ^ /. - ^ 09. The ruies have been framed In exercise of powers conferred under Section 17(1) of the Act. Rule 15 empowers the Pramukh Lokayukt to regu!ate the procedure to be foliowed in any proceedings, inqulry or investigation, where a provision in that regard has not been provlded for In these rules. Ruie 17 deals with the procedure to be foliowed during Investlgation by the Aayog, which reads as under: "17. Procedare to b@ foaowed Dt^ring invQstigation by the Aayog- When the Aayog decides to conduct an investigation against a pubSic servant, such pubiic servant shall be served wlth a copy of the complaint or a statement of imputatlons against hlm and shal! be afforded an opportunity of being heard personalSy or through his authorized representative." 10. From conjoint reading of the relevant provislons under the Act and the Rules referred to herelnabove, it can be deduced that the LOK Aayog has been empowered to decide the procedure to be foiiowed In making any jnquiry. However, it has to ensure that the princlpies of natural justice are satisfied. After receivjng a complaint under Section 8, the Lok Aayog is competent to coJiect evidence under Section 10, whlch casts a duty upon any pubiic servant or any other person to furnish information or produce documents reievant to the inquiry to the Lok Aayog, If demanded. Under Sectlon 11 of the act, If after inquiry on a complaint, the Lok Aayog is of the oplnion, that the compiaint is established, it shall submit its report with its findings and recommendatlons to the competent authorlty. Section 14(1) ciearly envlsages that any evidence recorded or collected by the Lok Aayog, members of its staff, such information is to be treated as confidentiaE. Whereas, under Ru!s 17 of the Ruies, if {' ^^ .-.^^ 11. 12. 13. the Lok Aayog decides to conduct an investjgatlon against a public servant, it has to either serve copy of the complaint or statement of smputations against him, and such public servant is aiso to be afforded an opportunlty of being heard personally or through his authorszed representatsve. !n view of the aforesaid provisions, we are of the opinion that where the Lok Aayog decldes to conduct an Investigation on the basis of complaint received agalnst a pubiic servant, En that case, such pubSic servant has to be served wlth a copy of the complaint or the statement of imputations against him and also afforded an opportunity of personal hearlng or through his authorized representative. if the procedure prescribed under Ruie 17 is foljowed, then the prjnciples of natura! justice, as mentioned in Section 9 of the Act, stand satlsfied. Slnce the Lok Aayog is conducting oniy preSimlnary investigation to ascertain the truth in the compiaint or the information received against the pubSlc servant, such investigation is only a fact flnding investlgation. After coilectlng evidence under Section 10, if the Lok Aayog is of the opinion that the compialnt ss established, it has to submit a report to the competent authority under Section- 11, and if the competent authorsty desires to take any punltive action against the charged public servant, In that case, that pubiic servant wouSd be given complete opportunity to defend himseif. So far as contention of the petitioner that the documents annexed with the compiaint are an integrai part of the compfajnt and therefore, the Lok Aayog ought to have supplied copy of those documents to the petitjonsr to enabi0 him to (^\ 'ii 10 -^-\ ):/ ^ (<) effectively reply to the notlce, is concerned, the petitioner couid have Inspected the compiaint and documents annexed there.with in the offlce of the Lok Aayog with the prlor permission of the Lok Aayog before fliEng hls repiy. However, jn view of the procedure prescribed under the Act and the RuEes, the Lok Aayog is only obliged to send copy of the complalnt or the statement of Imputations made against the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been served with a copy of the compjalnt as aiso a statement of imputations against him, the same satisfies the principies of natural justice as envisaged under Sectlon 9 of the Act. 14. On the basis of aforesaid discusslons, the instant petitlon is dlsposed of in fhe fo!lowing terms: The petltioner Is not entltied for copy of the documents annexed with the comp!alnt or the evidence coiiected by the Lok Aayog durlng Investigation in connection with the said compiaint at this stage, In vlew of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner shal! be afforded reasonable opportunity (preferabiy two weeks) for fifjng reply to the show cause notice and an opportunjty of personai Siearing in accordance with Ru!e 17 of the Rules; if the petitioner makes a request for Inspection of the record before the Lok Aayog, he may be permltted to inspect the documents annexed by compiainant Mr. Victor Ekka along with his compialnt jn order to enabie the petltioner to file reply. No order as to costs. ^d/~ Dhirendra Mishra Judge j 7.11.2009 (li) (ili)