S. RAMAMUNI REDDY Vs. LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Ramamuni Reddy and Satyanarayana, the two petitioners herein, were Ministers in the State Cabinet till August, 16, 1984. The former was the Minister for Medical and Health and the latter was the Transport Minister The Ministry went out of office on 16th August 1984. There were some swift political developments later as a result of which another Ministry was sworn in on Sep. 15, 1984. The Ministry which was in office till August 16 1984 and the Ministry which was newly sworn in on September 15, 1984 were headed by the same Chief Minister. The two petitioners herein did not find berths in the newly constituted Ministry on September 16, 1984 as they changed their loyalties in the intervening period between the 16th August and 16th September. Thus the two petitioners went out of office. On 13th October, 1984 the Chief Minister addressed a letter to the Governor stating, inter alia, that on the floor of the Legislative Assembly several legislators made allegations touching upon the honesty and integrity of the two petitioners herein in their official conduct in relation to certain transactions concerning the nationalisation of bus routes in Cuddapah district. The Chief Minister stated that on enquiry into the matters there appeared to be a prima facie case to show that the petitioners herein were actuated in their decisions either by corrupt motive causing loss to the State/Public or the action on the part of the petitioners has been abuse of their position to obtain gain. The Chief Minister forwarded a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and observed that the petitioners' cases were very fit for making a reference to the Lok Ayukta under Section 18(3) of Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta and Upa -Lokayukta Act, 1933, (Act No. 11 of 1983) ('the Act', for short). The Chief Minister accordingly requested the Governor to refer the matter to the Lok Ayukta under the Act. In the preliminary enquiry report accompanying the aforesaid letter dated 13th October, 1984, the allegations against the two petitioners and the result of preliminary enquiries were briefly set out. The grave men of the charge against the two petitioners was that Sri Ramamuni Raddy obtained for him gain of Rs. 90,000 and Sri Satyanarayana Rs. 1.30,000 by holding out assurances to the transport operators that the nationalisation of bus routes in Cuddapah district would be deferred for some time. On 11th February, 1985 the Governor wrote a secret demi -official letter to the Lok Ayukta. As the controversy in the present case turns upon this letter, it will be appropriate to extract the same.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Y. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General contended that the letter dt. 11 -2 -1985 possessed all characteristics of an order in writing required to be made by the Governor under Sec. 18(3) of the Act. It is pointed out that Sec. 18(3) of the Act as such does not require that the Governor should set out any grounds or indicate the names of any witnesses in the order in writing and it cannot, therefore, be said that there was any violation of the specific requirements of Sec. 18(3) of the Act in this regard. In any event it is claimed that the Governor forwarded along with his letter to the Lok Ayukta the letter dated 13 -10 -1884 addressed to him by the Chief Minister along with the preliminary enquiry report accompanying the Chief Ministers letter, which reveal the grounds for investigation. It is urged that the Governor's letter dated 11 -2 -1985 together with the aforesaid accompaniments should be so side red as one indivisible order in writing. It is, therefore, submitted that the order in writing made by the Governor contains the grounds for investigation. The learned Advocate General also pointed out that it is not obligatory that the names of witnesses should be indicated. It is further urged by the learned Advocate General that Rule 6(3) of the Rules cannot control the provisions contained in Sec. 18(3) of the Act. It is urged that the validity of the order passed under Sec. 18(3) of the Act must be judged with reference to Sec. 18(3) of the Act alone and without reference to Rule 6(3) of the Rules. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that there is any violation of the requirements of Rule 6(3) of the Rules inasmuch as the Lok Ayukta furnished to the petitioners herein the statement of allegations which contained the grounds for investigation and also a list of witnesses. The learned Advocate General also urged that the requirement in Rule 6(3) of the Rules to furnish to the petitioners a copy of the detailed grounds together with a list of witnesses if any in the order made by the Governor under Sec. 18(3) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory it is pointed out that in the present case the statement of allegations drown up by the Registrar of the Lok Ayukta contained all the grounds set out in the preliminary report forwarded by the Chief Minister which in turn was forwarded by the Governor to the Lok Ayukta. The furnishing of the statement of allegations along with the notice, which contained the detailed grounds must be considered to be substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 6 (3) of the Rules and no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by reason of the omission to forward copy of the order in writing dated 11 -2 -85 made by the Governor together with the accompaniments, as admittedly the petitioners were put in the knowledge of all the facts by the Lok Ayukta The learned Advocate General, therefore, submitted that jurisdiction was validly assumed by the Lok Ayukta to conduct the investigation under Sec. 18(3) of the Act.