The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Lokpal of India directing an investigation into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions at the National Productivity Council, holding that the Lokpal acted contrary to the statutory procedure by forming a prima facacie opinion without first hearing the affected public servants. The Court explained that Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act requires the Lokpal to provide an opportunity of being heard before arriving at any conclusion on whether a prima facie case exists. According to the Court, this procedural safeguard is mandatory, as the Act uses the word “shall,” leaving no discretion to bypass a hearing.
The case before the High Court involved a situation where the Lokpal recorded detailed findings and concluded that a prima facie case of corruption existed. Only after forming this view did the Lokpal issue notices to the public servants concerned. The High Court observed that such a sequence amounted to the Lokpal pre-judging the allegations and then calling for a hearing, which defeated the purpose of the statutory safeguard. The bench, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, held that the legislative intent behind introducing the mandatory hearing requirement was to ensure fairness, especially because the Lokpal has significant powers, including the authority to direct full-fledged investigations that could have serious consequences for the reputation and career of a public servant.
The Court noted that the scheme of the Act is structured in a manner where the hearing precedes the formation of any opinion. Only after this step can the Lokpal decide whether the allegations warrant further investigation. The High Court stated that forming an opinion first and hearing the public servant later reverses the statutory process and violates principles of natural justice. It further held that an opinion formed without the mandatory prior hearing cannot stand in law and therefore all consequential notices and actions flowing from such an order are also invalid.
In its judgment, the High Court quashed the Lokpal’s order and the subsequent notices. However, it clarified that its decision does not prevent the Lokpal from proceeding afresh in accordance with the law. The Lokpal may issue a new notice and grant an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servants, and only after completing this step may it decide whether a prima facie case exists for directing an investigation. The ruling reaffirms that statutory bodies must adhere to procedural safeguards laid down by the legislature and cannot circumvent mandatory steps, especially in matters that can significantly affect the rights and reputation of individuals subject to inquiry.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.