LAKSHMAN CHATURVEDI Vs. CHHATTISGARH LOK AYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner 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 directed to submit reply latest by 28th August, 2009, failing which it shall be deemed that the petitioner has nothing to say, and has further prayed for direction to the respondent to supply each and every document, records and materials submitted by the complainant, as also collected from the University during inquiry of complaint against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, grievance of the petitioner is that he was Vice Chancellor of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University (hereinafter referred to as "University") at the relevant time. Presently, he is Vice Chancellor of Guru Ghasidas University (now Central University), Bilaspur. A complaint was filed by one Mr. Victor Ekka, Dy. Registrar against the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Act, 2002 (in short "the Act"). The complainant annexed documents running into 124 pages along with the complaint. The Lok Aayog got the complaint enquired into without notice to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice on 4-5- 2009 levelling as many as nine charges against him along with incomplete copy of the complaint without annexing the documents filed with the said complaint. The petitioner requested the Lok Aayog for supply of documents filed along with the complaint and the documents, which were supplied by the University. However, the petitioner was advised to get those documents from the University as being done by one Mr. K. K. Chandrakar. His further request for supply of documents was again turned down vide Annexure P/2 and he has been finally directed to appear on 28-8- 2009 before the Aayog.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the documents annexed with the complaint form integral part of the complaint and the documents provided by the University to the Lok Aayog and relied upon by it to take action against the petitioner also form part of the complaint. The petitioner is entitled to have copies of the above documents. The proceeding before the Lok Aayog is a judicial proceeding by virtue of Section 10(3) of the Act. A conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog (Investigation) Rules, 2002 (for brevity "the Rules") clearly indicates that in a proceeding initiated by the Lok Aayog, principles of natural justice are to be strictly adhered to as recommendations of the Lok Aayog will have civil consequences against the petitioner. The petitioner would not be able to reply to the charges merely by reading the charges without the documents, on the basis of which the charges have been levelled. Section 14(1) of the Act only provides that any information obtained in the course of an enquiry by the Lok Aayog in respect of the complaint and evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information, shall be treated as confidential and this confidentiality will not be applicable for supply of copy of the complaint and the documents filed along with the complaint. Rebutting the contention of the respondent that evidence gathered during enquiry is confidential under Section 14 of the Act, it was argued that the respondent has itself filed the documents gathered during enquiry as Annexure R/1 to R/3 and therefore, refusal to supply copies of those documents on the ground of confidentiality, is a mere pretext. So far as the other argument that from the documents of Annexure R/1 to R/3, it is evident that the petitioner was aware about the complaint and the reply filed by the University was processed by himself as the then Vice Chancellor of the University, is concerned, the same would not absolve the respondent from furnishing the material collected during enquiry to afford the petitioner an opportunity to effectively reply to the charges levelled against him.