RAVEENDRANATH K Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's herein were the respondents in a proceedings before the Lok Ayukta, based on a complaint preferred by the 6th respondent Smt.K.S.Geetha. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 interim order passed by the Lok Ayukta, which directs the payment of retirement benefits, together with interest calculated at 8% p.a., for a period of 21 months, to the complainant (6th respondent) and further directs the 4th respondent (Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department) to pay an amount of Rs. 2,94,810/- to the complainant, file a compliance report and thereafter identify the officers responsible for the delay and take steps to recover the stipulated amounts from them. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta are not such as could have been passed by the said authority in terms of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Reference is made to the decisions of this court in University of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna, (2014) 2 KerLT 233 and Sudha Devi v. District Collector, (2017) 2 KerLT 1127 to point out that the law is well settled that the Lok Ayukta cannot pass orders containing positive directions, much less directions that are peremptory in nature, while exercising its powers under the Act. It is contended that the orders that can be passed by the Lok Ayukta, can only be recommendatory in nature, and in the form of a report before the State Government.

(2.) We have heard Sri.B.Mohan Lal for the petitioner, Sri.Tek Chand, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 3 and 4, Sri.P.Gopal for respondent No.5 and Sri.Rajesh Nair, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the settled position in law as laid down by this court in the judgments in University of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna, (2014) 2 KerLT 233 and Sudha Devi v. District Collector, (2017) 2 KerLT 1127, we find that Ext.P6 interim order of the Lok Ayukta cannot be legally sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the said order making it clear that, while the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta can continue at the instance of the 6th respondent, the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta shall only be such as can be passed by it in terms of the Lok Ayukta Act as clarified by the aforementioned decisions of this court.