AJAY KUMAR GOND Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20. 09. 2019 passed by the learned Lokayukta in Complaint Case No. 01/LOK(Utpad)/01/2017 whereby the office has been directed to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi along with the complaint as well as the last inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, ACB vide letter no. 12329 dated 30. 08. 2019 with recommendation to lodge the F. I. R. against the petitioner and has also recommended for further investigation against him.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Dilip Yadav (respondent no. 4) made a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income and requested for initiation of a proceeding against him. The learned Lokayukta called for a preliminary inquiry report from Additional Director General of Police, ACB, Ranchi. Thereafter, the D. I. G. , ACB, Ranchi conducted an inquiry into the matter and submitted the report to the learned Lokayukta vide letter no. 1377 dated 01. 02. 2019 showing 97. 10 % disproportionate income of the petitioner. In the meantime the petitioner filed representation in the office of the learned Lokayukta for providing an opportunity to represent his case, whereafter he was given a copy of the complaint as well as the preliminary inquiry report so as to enable him to submit reply. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the reply wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him. On the first date, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the learned Lokayukta about the errors made in calculation of income and expenditure. Whereafter, the learned Lokayukta directed the investigating agency to make recalculation of the petitioner's assets. After recalculation, the Superintendent of Police, ACB submitted second report by reducing the disproportionate assets of the petitioner from 97. 10% to 95. 14%. The petitioner again agitated before the Lokayukta that there were serious irregularities in the calculation of income and expenditure of the petitioner and his family members. The learned Lokayukta against asked the ACB to make recalculation. Thereafter the third inquiry report was submitted by the ACB showing the disproportionate assets of the petitioner as 87. 86%. The learned Lokayukta vide impugned order dated 20. 09. 2019 observed that a prima facie case of disproportionate assets to the extent of 87. 86% against the petitioner was made out. He also made recommendation for taking further action against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the third inquiry report was never served to the petitioner. Had the copy of the inquiry report been furnished to the petitioner, he would have got appropriate chance to verify as to whether there were further errors in the said report submitted by the ACB. However, in absence of a copy of the report, the petitioner is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the ACB committed further infirmities in making calculation of income and expenditure of the petitioner and his family members. The learned Lokayukta has observed in the impugned order dated 20. 09. 2019 that none of the persons from whom the petitioner claims to have taken loan appeared before him to support his contention without appreciating the fact that no summon was ever issued to them to lead evidence. It was incumbent upon the learned Lokayukta to furnish a copy of the third/final inquiry report submitted by the ACB vide letter no. 12329 dated 30. 08. 2019 to the petitioner. Non-furnishing of the copy of the said report to the petitioner clearly suggests that he was not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by the learned Lokayukta and the same is in violation of Section 10 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (in short "the Act, 2001). It is further submitted that the finding of the learned Lokayukta to the extent that the office of Lokayukta is not a court, is a perverse finding as the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, 2001 confers the powers of the civil court to the Lokayukta including the power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and to examine him on oath. The learned Lokayukta also committed an error in observing that only calculation mistakes of income and expenditure can be corrected by the office of the learned Lokayukta and the same has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner as the finding of the investigating agency became a gospel truth which has not been properly examined by the learned Lokayukta. It is also submitted that the learned Lokayukta has also transgressed his powers conferred under the Act, 2001 by holding inter alia in the impugned order that the petitioner's case is a fit one where an F. I. R. should be instituted against him and the investigating agency has been directed to investigate the case at length and to take appropriate action. The learned Lokayukta has also committed an error in not taking into consideration the entire income of Smt. Rani Devi- wife of the petitioner earned through the house rent for the check period. From the computation chart for the period 2018-19, it would be evident that Smt. Rani Devi has been shown to have earned an amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- from house rent. However, the investigating agency as well as the learned Lokayukta failed to take the said income of Smt. Rani Devi into consideration. Similarly, it would also be evident from the computation chart for the year 2017-18 that the petitioner's wife had earned Rs. 1,02,000/- from house rent, but the same has not been taken into consideration while arriving at the computation of the disproportionate assets of the petitioner. So far as the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are concerned, the income of petitioner's wife to the extent of Rs. 3,60,000/- each year has also not been taken into consideration by the investigating agency or the learned Lokayukta. As such, it is evident that various lawful income of the petitioner as well as his wife-Smt. Rani Devi through house rent and the loan taken from 11 of his relatives, have also not been considered while calculating the disproportionate assets of the petitioner. The Lokayukta has completely ignored the aforesaid aspects while passing the impugned order and thereby erroneously directed the investigating agency to institute an F. I. R. and to investigate the case of the petitioner at length and submit a report before him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the letter.