Bala Subrahmanyam Pochinapeddi vs The Lokpal Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~148
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010496502026
+ W.P.(C) 15243/2026, CM APPL. 71577/2026, CM APPL.
71578/2026 & CM APPL. 71579/202
BALA SUBRAHMANYAM POCHINAPEDDI .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
versus
THE LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated
19.08.2026 passed by the learned Lokpal of India (hereinafter
“Lokpal”) rejecting the complaint made by the petitioner wherein he
had made allegations against one J.S. Jawahar Raj, who was working
as a Senior Superintendent of Railways in 2023 and the then
Postmaster General, Southern Region, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
2. The allegations in the complaint given to the learned Lokpal
have been stated in paragraph no. 10,and the same is reproduced as
under:-
“Facts and Circumstances: Summary of
facts:
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 1 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
1. Without issuing any order in writing, one
official Sri N. Varunraja, working as Multi
Tasking Staff (MTS) was drafted to the
residential quarters of both PMG’s who
utilised him as cook and watchman for their
personal needs.
2. Officially the MTS was shown as working
at Head Record Office, Madurai but he was
utilised as a personal cook cum watchman at
the residential quarters without any orders.
3. False documents were created to draw his
pay and allowances even changing the
Drawal and Disbursing Officer (DDO)
without any written order.
4. There is no post of Cook or Night
Watchman attached to the residence of the
PMG.
5. No official document of his signing in
attendance register while working as cook
cum night watchman at the residence of the
PMG nor in any official document.
6. Statement of the MTS dated 07-02-2026
corroborates his working as cook cum
watchman at the residence of the PMG for
more than 2 years with other connected
documents not showing him working
anywhere.
7. Loss sustained by the department out of
this irregular arrangement personally
benefitting the PMG couple is Rs.
10,99,117/- (Rs Ten lakhs ninety nine
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 2 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
thousand one hundred seventeen only)
without penal interest and without getting
any departmental service from this MTS.
8. Connected documents in annexure format
explain relevancy of each document relating
to this misuse of official power for personal
gain. Complaint with CVC:
1. Detailed complaint filed with CVC vide
complaint dated10-02-2026 registered by
CVC with complaint number
144432/2026.
2. CVC informed on01-04-2026, that the
CVO of the Department of Posts “filed the
complaint in view of the nature of issues
therein after examination”. This strategic
reply closing the complaint in an attempt
to shield corruption is now taken up with
the Hon’ble Lokpal with the following
details.
3. Complaint is filed with documentary
evidence of “deriving undue advantage
monetarily at the cost of the department
misusing official power and does not have
ingredients to be filed”.
4. The statements of the officials enclosed
with the complaint categorically lead to a
definite conclusion that the arrangement
was made at the behest of the PMG couple
who without engaging outsider for
cooking and watchman, drafted this MTS
misusing official power thereby allowing
the department to forego his service while
paying for him without getting any official
service.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 3 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
5. Filing the complaint amounts to
shielding the corruption even when
existence of overwhelming documentary
evidence is there which deserves scrutiny
by the Hon’ble Lokpal.
Details of offences alleged under PC Act
1988
1. Attracts Section-7 (a) of PC Act -1988 (as
amended in 2018) since this complaint
involved “deriving undue monetary
advantage for personal gain misusing
official power”. If the couple are in need of a
cook, they can arrange from outside
spending personal money but getting a
departmental MTS drafted for cooking
purpose through circuitous route without any
written order and utilising him at their
residence without any service to the
department is enriching personally causing
loss to the department.
2. Department did not benefit from the
service of the MTS rather paid this MTS from
the department for more than 2 years and
2months for his cooking for the benefit of the
PMG couple personally.
3. Also attracted section-7 (a) in terms of
“performance of a public duty improperly
and dishonestly” for personal benefit of the
PMG couple.
4. Attracts Section-7 (b) in terms of “undue
advantage from any person as a reward for
the improper or dishonest performance of a
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 4 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
public duty or for forbearing to perform such
duty”. By improperly drafting his services as
a cook, derived undue advantage from this
person as a reward making him perform his
duties improperly.
5. Attracted Section- 7 ( c) when the PMG
couple “induced this MTS who is a public
servant to perform his duties improperly”.
Para No 13: information which the
complainant wants to furnish: The CVO who
is one cadre above of the PMG couple did
not critically examine the content of the
complaint with its documentary enclosures
swiftly ordering filing of the complaint
leading to shielding the activities of
corruption which would send a wrong
message to the cadre working in the
department that the officers at higher level
can do corruption with impunity. Requests
full fledged inquiry.”
3. The said complaint has been rejected by the learned Lokpal vide
the impugned order stating that identical complaints have been made
before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter “CVC”), who
had got the complaints inquired into by the Office of the Chief
Vigilance Officer (hereinafter “CVO”), Department of Posts, Ministry
of Communications, and then closed the complaints.
4. The learned Lokpal also took note of the fact that the CVC,
while conducting the inquiry, was of the opinion that the complaints
had been made with malafide intentions and the statements of the
employee regarding misuse of the employee’s services for personal
benefit had been obtained by the complainant for his own personal
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 5 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
benefit to harm the officer. It was found that the petitioner, who took
the complaint of the concerned employee, was neither the controlling
authority of that official nor was he authorised as a competent
authority to conduct the inquiry to obtain such statement.
Accordingly, the complaints were found to be unsubstantiated.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner first
approached the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, by filing WP
(MD) No. 26231/2026. The said writ petition was rejected on the
ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the petitioner
to approach this Court.
6. The petitioner appears in person.
7. The petitioner contends that the procedure prescribed under
Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (hereinafter
“Lokpal Act”) has not been followed and that the learned Lokpal has
adopted a casual and mechanical approach by deviating from the
procedure.
8. He submits that the learned Lokpal should have applied its mind
independently and not relied on the decision of the CVC, and that
without conducting an independent inquiry as contemplated in Section
20, the learned Lokpal could not have closed the complaint.
9. Heard the petitioner.
10. A complaint under the Lokpal Act is defined under Section
2(e). The same is extracted and read as under:-
“(e) "complaint" means a complaint, made
in such form as may be prescribed, alleging
that a public servant has committed an
offence punishable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988”
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 6 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
11. To attract the provisions of the Lokpal Act, the act complained
about must come within the definition of Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter “PCA”).
12. On the face of it, it is doubtful as to whether the actions
complained about by the petitioner would come within the definition
of Section 7 of the PCA, which deals with offences relating to public
servants being bribed.
13. Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioner in the present
case is that the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Lokpal
Act has not been followed.
14. The procedure to be adopted by the learned Lokpal related to
complaints, preliminary inquiry and investigation is given under
Section 20 of the Lokpal Act. Section 20(1) of the Lokpal Act is
reproduced and reads as under:-
“20. Provisions relating to complaints and
preliminary inquiry and investigation.—
(1)The Lokpal on receipt of a complaint, if it
decides to proceed further, may order
(a)preliminary inquiry against any public servant
by its Inquiry Wing or any agency (including the
Delhi Special Police Establishment) to ascertain
whether there exists a prima facie case for
proceeding in the matter; or
(b)investigation by any agency (including the
Delhi Special Police Establishment) when there
exists a prima facie case: Provided that the
Lokpal shall if it has decided to proceed with the
preliminary inquiry, by a general or special
order, refer the complaints or a category of
complaints or a complaint received by it in
respect of public servants belonging to Group A
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 7 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
or Group B or Group C or Group D to the
Central Vigilance Commission constituted under
sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central
Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of
2003):Provided further that the Central Vigilance
Commission in respect of complaints referred to it
under the first proviso, after making preliminary
inquiry in respect of public servants belonging to
Group A and Group B, shall submit its report to
the Lokpal in accordance with the provisions
contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) and in case
of public servants belonging to Group C and
Group D, the Commission shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of the Central
Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of
2003):Provided also that before ordering an
investigation under clause (b), the Lokpal shall
call for the explanation of the public servant so as
to determine whether there exists a prima facie
case for investigation: Provided also that the
seeking of explanation from the public servant
before an investigation shall not interfere with the
search and seizure, if any, required to be
undertaken by any agency (including the Delhi
Special Police Establishment) under this Act.”
15. A reading of the aforesaid section shows that upon receiving a
complaint, the learned Lokpal has to first make up its mind as to
whether to proceed with the complaint or not.
16. While deciding to proceed with the complaint, it is for the
learned Lokpal to look into all the material on record carefully and
then initiate an inquiry, as initiation of an inquiry under Section 20 of
the Lokpal Act has its own consequences. Initiating an inquiry under
the Lokpal Act cannot be for the asking. For this purpose, in the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 8 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
present case, the learned Lokpal has looked into the identical
complaint made by the complainant before the CVC which is relevant
material.
17. The petitioner has given two complaints before the CVC. The
first one is dated 10.02.2026, and the other is dated 18.02.2026. Both
complaints have been investigated by the CVO, and the CVO
recommended the closure of both the complaints on 01.04.2026.
18. The learned Lokpal has also reproduced the conclusion of the
CVO, which is being reproduced by this Court to read as under:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case in the light of the observations made
above after due examination of the matter,
the allegations levelled in the complaints are
not substantiated. It may rather be inferred
that the complainant has deliberately made a
malicious and malafide attempt to mislead
and misrepresent facts before the highest
statutory institutions entrusted with
addressing corruption and public misconduct
apparently with an intent to malign the
officers named in the complaint and to
disrupt smooth functioning of the Tamil
Nadu Circle. The Hon’ble Lokpal and the
CVC may, consider allowing this
Department to take further action against the
said Shri. P. Balasubrahmanyam, the
complainant, in accordance with applicable
Conduct Rules and may also pass such other
orders as deemed fit.”
19. The learned Lokpal has satisfied itself regarding the complaint.
The learned Lokpal has also considered that the complaint made by
the petitioner herein is stemming out of his own personal agenda and
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 9 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16
is, thus, malafide .
20. The CVO, on inquiry by the CVC, has found that the concerned
Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) was not under the administrative control
of the petitioner and the petitioner could not have elicited the
complaint or any statement from the said officer.
21. In the opinion of this Court, a reading of the impugned order
dated 19.08.2026 passed by the learned Lokpal does indicate that the
petitioner is actually abusing the process of law.
22. In view thereof, this Court does not find any infirmity with the
decision-making process of the learned Lokpal, who is authorised to
look into all the material before deciding to initiate an inquiry. It is not
necessary that to every complaint, the learned Lokpal has to initiate an
inquiry. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Lokpal
cannot be found fault with. No other ground has been urged by the
Petitioner.
23. Accordingly, the present petition, along with all pending
applications, stands dismissed.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026/ ng/sm
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(C) 15243/2026 Page 10 of 10
21.10.2026 16:16