Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Orissa High Court in the Odisha Lokayukta case
While hearing the Office of the Odisha Lokayukta vs. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi case, the Supreme Court overruled the order and judgment passed by the Orissa High Court quashing the demand for probe (by State Vigilance) against Gopalpur MLA Pradeep Panigrahi by Odisha Lokayukta. The bench including Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ajay Rastogi stated that “there was no element of bias in conducting a preliminary inquiry in the instant case and the objection raised by the respondents stands overruled.”
The appeals, in this case, were directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa. It set aside an order passed by the Odisha Lokayukta initiating to conduct of a preliminary inquiry in the exercise of a power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014. The review petition filed at the instance of the appellant was dismissed by passing a nonspeaking order. It was done on the premise that “Odisha Lokayukta was never heard and no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing of the impugned order and it was in violation of the principles of natural justice.” It was also identified that the appellant did not initiate any adverse or prejudicial action to conduct a preliminary inquiry under its order.
In addition, the interference made by the High Court in the context of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution was neither valid nor justified. It was further determined that the decision itself was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the “complaint once made by the officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, at least entrusting the preliminary inquiry to be conducted by another Officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, may be senior in the ladder, was not legally justified.” In the facts and circumstances, on receipt of a complaint may decide either order for conducting a preliminary inquiry against the public servant by its inquiry wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case. The appellant questioned the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that “since the Tribunal is not a party respondent who was the Administrator before whom the dispute inter se between the parties i.e. the teacher and the minority institution was examined, Tribunal was not a necessary party to the proceedings for the reason that the lis was between teacher and the minority institution.” In this context, the Supreme Court stated that “the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the letters patent appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable in the absence of Tribunal being a party respondent.” The bench further added that “the appellant is a person aggrieved and can certainly question the legality/validity of the judgment of the High Court impugned by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.” The Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the demand for a probe by the Odisha Lokayukta.
