SRINIVASAN Vs. HONBLE UPA LOKAYUKTA OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ of Prohibition or any other writ or order directing the first respondent not to proceed further with the investigation into the Complaint No. 747 of 1993 is sought from this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner he retired as Joint Director, Agriculture Department on 31-5-1993. On the basis of the complaint made by the second respondent to the first respondent on 4-3-1993, the first respondent issued notice in Form No. VII requiring the petitioner to submit his reply to the notice in Form No.VII. Petitioner has submitted reply to the first respondent on 8-11-1994 and 11-11-1994.

(3.) In the reply filed by the petitioner, two principle objections were raised by him. The one being that since he has retired from service, no proceedings could be initiated against him and the second being that the allegation on which the present enquiry is sought to be made against the petitioner, has already been enquired into, in the enquiries held by the various authorities and that as required under Rule 4 (4) (g) of the A. P. Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta Rules, 1984 (for short 'the Rules) if on the same issues enquiry has been held by earlier authorities, the complaint has to be rejected in limini.