SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the Court: - Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) including writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dtd. 25/4/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand in Complaint Case No.01/Lok(Grih) 03/2012, whereby and whereunder direction has been issued to the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) for institution of FIR against the petitioner being without any jurisdiction and beyond the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta under the provisions of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and issuing further writ(s)/direction(s) including writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR being Vigilance Case No.16 of 2017, corresponding to Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.14 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the President of a political party made a written complaint before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand alleging therein that the petitioner who was working as Divisional Fire Officer as amassed huge property disproportionate to his known source of income. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon the direction of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand, a preliminary enquiry was instituted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau but the said order is not under challenge in this writ application. An enquiry report was submitted to the Lokayukta, Jharkhand on 24/4/2017 and vide order dtd. 25/4/2017, the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand directed the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau to lodge an F.I.R. and to carry out thorough investigation and after collection of evidence, to proceed in accordance with law and to submit the compliance report to the Office of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand within three months as the Hon'ble Lokayukta found that the petitioner has amassed a sum of Rs.53,11,509.00 in excess of his known source of income, which is 66% of his known source of income. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta for institution of the F.I.R. against the petitioner is having adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner and vitally affects the civil rights of the petitioner and the order has been passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta in violation of the principle of natural justice, hence is violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is next submitted that under the provisions of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, Hon'ble Lokayukta has not been conferred any jurisdiction to direct for institution of F.I.R. against any public servant either serving or retired and on the contrary, the only power vested under Sec. 12 of the said act is only to communicate in writing, his findings and recommendation along with relevant documents to the competent authority and it is for the competent authority to examine the report forwarded to it by the office of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand and to inform the Lokayukta thereafter about the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report to it by the office of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand and if the Hon'ble Lokayukta is not satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken against the public servant, the learned Lokayukta has been conferred with jurisdiction to make special report with respect to the case to the Government of Jharkhand. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Sec. 12 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 which reads as under:-