Chinmoyjit Sen vs Lokpal Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 07.04.2026

Date of decision: 15.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 4129/2026, CM APPL. 20143/2026, CM APPL. 20144/2026,
CM APPL. 20145/2026 & CM APPL. 20146/2026


CHINMOYJIT SEN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. with
Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr.Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jana Mishra
and Ms. Poonam Shukla, Advs.
versus
LOKPAL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the Order
dated 25.02.2026 (“impugned order”) and show cause Notice dated
27.02.2026 both passed by the Lokpal of India under the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013, (“the Act”) in Complaint No.243/2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that with regard to the Complaint No.
243/2025, the Lokpal initiated proceedings under the Act and required the
Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) to conduct a preliminary inquiry
under Section 20(1) of the Act vide its Order dated 22.08.2025. The CBI
conducted the preliminary enquiry and submitted its preliminary inquiry
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:16.04.2026
10:47:30
W.P.(C) 4129/2026 Page 1 of 5

report dated 27.01.2026. The Lokpal considered the said report and passed an
Order dated 25.02.2026, impugned in the present writ petition. The Lokpal
prima facie found allegations nos. 1 and 3 against the petitioner and
allegations nos. 2 and 4 in his favour, as unsubstantiated. Thereafter, the
Lokpal also issued the impugned Notice dated 27.02.2026 to the petitioner
giving him opportunity of hearing under Section 20(3) of the Act on the said
two allegations.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order and notice, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Before passing the said order, it was
incumbent upon the Lokpal to give the opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
4. He further submits that now the Lokpal has already made up his mind
and there is no purpose in issuing the show cause notice to the present
petitioner. Thus, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
5. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Shri Shashi
Shekhar Prasad v. Lokpal of India and Ors ., 2026:DHC:2853-DB.
6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have gone through the record, including the impugned Order
dated 25.02.2026 and the impugned Notice dated 27.02.2026.
7. So far as the judgment in Shashi Shekhar Prasad v. Lokpal of India
and Ors (supra) is concerned, has no application to the facts of the present
case as in the said case, orders after hearing on the show cause notice under
Section 20(3) of the Act were passed and challenged, unlike the present case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:16.04.2026
10:47:30
W.P.(C) 4129/2026 Page 2 of 5

where any order on the show cause notice under Section 20(3) of the Act is
yet to be passed.
8. After the preliminary inquiry report of the CBI was received by the
Lokpal, it was incumbent upon it to consider the same and form a prima facie
opinion for the purpose of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner. Had
the Lokpal agreed with the opinion of the CBI which is in favour of the
petitioner, it would have dropped the proceedings and there was no
requirement for issuance of any notice to the petitioner. On not being fully
satisfied with regard to allegation nos.1 and 3 against the petitioner, the
Lokpal has given a notice under Section 20(3) of the Act to the petitioner to
submit a reply and thus, given him an opportunity of hearing.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
would be severely prejudiced as the Lokpal has considered the matter and
passed the impugned order, does not impress us. It is incumbent on the Lokpal
to first peruse the record and form a prima facie opinion if any case is made
out against the petitioner. Without applying mind to the said extent, the
issuance of notice to the petitioner by the Lokpal would have been without
any application of mind. Therefore, to say that the Lokpal has considered the
preliminary inquiry report of the CBI and thereafter passed the impugned
order dated 25.02.2026, would prejudice the petitioner, does not impress us.
On the basis of the said order, the Lokpal has issued a show cause notice
under which now an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the petitioner to
the extent of show cause notice. The impugned Order dated 25.02.2026 is
only a prima facie opinion and final order for proceeding with one or more of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:16.04.2026
10:47:30
W.P.(C) 4129/2026 Page 3 of 5

the actions under Section 20(3) of the Act is to be passed only after hearing
the petitioner.
10. Further, the impugned notice was issued on 27.02.2026 and the
petitioner was required to appear before the Lokpal, after submitting his
reply, on 18.03.2026. On the said date, petitioner appeared in the matter and
took time for filing a reply. Instead of filing a reply, he proceeded to file the
present writ petition before this Court.
11. It appears that the entire time taken in challenging the impugned Order
and the show cause notice is to somehow delay the proceedings before the
Lokpal.
12. Petitioner can, and ought to, raise all his grievances before the Lokpal.
The Lokpal is an august body, chaired by persons having huge experience and
knowledge in the field of law. They are fully conscious with regard to prima
facie opinion made in the matter at the stage of issuance of show cause notice,
and a final decision, with regard to proceeding under Section 20(3), to be
taken after hearing the parties.
13. We make it clear that the opportunity of hearing to the public servant is
contemplated before any final action is taken under Section 20(3). Had the
legislature intended that a hearing be granted even prior to issuance of a show
cause notice, it would have so provided. Therefore, the mere issuance of a
show cause notice, after due consideration of the material on record, cannot
be said to be without application of mind or in violation of principles of
natural justice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:16.04.2026
10:47:30
W.P.(C) 4129/2026 Page 4 of 5

14. We further make it clear that the Lokpal shall consider the reply of the
petitioner and take a final decision without being prejudiced by any
observation made by it in the impugned Order dated 25.02.2026.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.


VIVEK CHAUDHARY
(JUDGE)


RENU BHATNAGAR
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026/ pk/nc
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:16.04.2026
10:47:30
W.P.(C) 4129/2026 Page 5 of 5