Direction for Registration of FIR and Disciplinary Action Based on Successive Enquiries Without Fresh Material Is Arbitrary.

The petitioner, Surendra Kumar Singhai, was appointed as a Stenographer in the Police Department in 1980.

In 2011, a complaint alleged he secured employment via a forged Hindi shorthand certificate.

An initial enquiry by the Deputy SP in 2012 found the certificate genuine based on RTI documents and result sheets from 1980.

However, the matter was reopened years later without fresh material, leading to a second enquiry report dated 13.05.2016 that found him guilty.

Consequently, the Director General of Police issued a letter on 20.05.2016 directing criminal proceedings.

In WP 15895/2016, the petitioner sought a mandamus for the Lokayukt to investigate alleged bribery by officials during the enquiry.

Conversely, in WP 17794/2016, a whistle-blower sought directions to expedite the criminal action against the petitioner based on the second report.

1. Whether the administrative direction to initiate criminal proceedings is legally sustainable given the prior exculpatory enquiry and lack of procedural fairness in the subsequent enquiry

2. Whether the Lokayukt is mandated to act upon a formal complaint regarding illegal gratification demanded during administrative enquiries

3. Whether a third-party whistle-blower can compel the execution of an administrative order that is under judicial scrutiny for procedural irregularities

The Court primarily applied the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, a cornerstone of natural justice, which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard, especially when actions carry civil and penal consequences.

The Court also relied on the administrative law principle that repeated enquiries on identical facts without fresh material constitute arbitrariness and an abuse of power.

Furthermore, it emphasized that while writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot generally be used to adjudicate disputed facts, it must intervene where administrative action is demonstrably unreasonable or violates procedural safeguards.

The Court observed that the 2016 direction for an FIR was flawed because it disregarded the 2012 enquiry report, which had attained finality and was supported by contemporaneous RTI records from 1980.

The secondary enquiry was conducted "behind the back" of the petitioner without notice or confrontation with adverse material, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that the respondents failed to justify reopening the case after a long lapse of time or explain why the earlier exculpatory evidence (Annexures P-4, P-5, and P-6) was ignored.

Regarding the Lokayukt petition, the Court noted that while it cannot dictate the outcome, it has the jurisdiction to ensure statutory bodies perform their duty to investigate corruption complaints within a reasonable timeframe.

The whistle-blower's plea was rejected as premature since the foundation of the sought action (the second report) was procedurally tainted.

It ordered a fresh, independent enquiry to be conducted by a competent authority unconnected to previous proceedings, ensuring a full hearing for all parties and consideration of all RTI documents.

WP No. 15895/2016 was disposed of with a direction to the Lokayukt to consider the corruption complaint in accordance with law.

WP No. 17794/2016 was disposed of noting that no specific directions could be issued pending the fresh enquiry; any criminal action shall be subject to the outcome of this new enquiry.