Delhi HC Upholds Lokpal’s Rejection Of Complaint Alleging PMG Used MTS As Cook, Says Petitioner Abused Process Of Law

The petitioner challenged the Lokpal’s order dated 19 August 2026 rejecting his complaint against a Senior Superintendent of Railways and the then Postmaster General, Southern Region.

The complaint alleged that a Multi-Tasking Staff employee had been deployed as a cook and watchman at the Postmaster General’s residence, causing financial loss to the Department and attracting offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Lokpal relied on prior CVC-related proceedings in which the CVO, Department of Posts, had found the allegations unsubstantiated and recommended closure.

After the Madras High Court declined territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner brought this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the Lokpal had failed to follow Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, and had not independently examined the complaint.

Whether the Lokpal was required to conduct an independent preliminary inquiry under Section 20 before rejecting the complaint

Whether the Lokpal could rely on the prior CVC/CVO examination and its findings when deciding not to proceed with the complaint

Section 2(e) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 defines a complaint as an allegation that a public servant has committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Section 20(1) provides that, on receiving a complaint, the Lokpal may decide whether to proceed and, if it does, may order a preliminary inquiry or investigation; where it decides to proceed with a preliminary inquiry, the statutory provisos prescribe referral to the CVC for specified categories of public servants.

The Court held that the Lokpal must consider the material before it when deciding whether to initiate an inquiry, and that an inquiry is not required for every complaint.

The Court also observed that the alleged conduct’s fit within Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concerning offences relating to public servants being bribed, was doubtful.

The Court read Section 20 as requiring the Lokpal first to decide whether to proceed, rather than mandating an inquiry upon every complaint.

In making that decision, the Lokpal could consider the prior examination of the identical complaints by the CVO and the resulting conclusion that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The Court also noted the CVO’s finding that the MTS was not under the petitioner’s administrative control and that the petitioner was not authorised to obtain the employee’s statement.

In these circumstances, the Court found that the Lokpal had considered the relevant material and that its decision-making process disclosed no procedural infirmity.

The writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.