Lokayukta cannot directly order recovery without complying with statutory inquiry and investigation requirements.

The petitioner, an In-charge Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Singhwara, Darbhanga, was responsible for approving bills relating to the operation of a generator used for essential medical equipment.

A complaint was made before the Bihar Lokayukta alleging excess payment to the generator owner.

Without issuing notice to the petitioner or conducting a proper enquiry or investigation, the Lokayukta passed an order dated 17 November 2020 holding the petitioner and a clerk responsible for pecuniary loss and directing recovery, departmental action, and criminal prosecution.

Pursuant to that order, the Health Department issued several communications directing recovery of approximately Rs. 7,42,074.90 from the petitioner and the clerk, including recovery from salary.

The petitioner was subsequently directed to deposit Rs. 4,00,000 and deposited the amount under protest and alleged duress.

He also sought copies of the Lokayukta proceedings, but the request was rejected under the Bihar Lokayukta Investigation Regulations, 2013.

The State and the Lokayukta did not file counter-affidavits despite service of the writ petition in 2022.

The petitioner challenged the Lokayukta’s order and the consequential recovery orders.

1. Whether the Lokayukta’s order directing recovery from the petitioner was legally sustainable in the absence of compliance with Sections 16, 28 and 28A of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011, including the required enquiry or investigation?

2. Whether the consequential departmental communications and recovery directions issued on the basis of the Lokayukta’s order could survive after the foundational order was found to be without jurisdiction?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the Rs. 4,00,000 deposited pursuant to the impugned recovery directions?

The Court applied Section 16 of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011, which defines the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction and confines its intervention to matters involving allegations or grievances, particularly those connected with corruption.

Sections 28 and 28A require the Lokayukta to proceed on the basis of an enquiry or investigation and, where appropriate, to make a written report or recommendation to the competent authority rather than directly impose service or recovery consequences.

Section 38 recognises the Lokayukta’s power to make recommendations, including recommendations concerning contracts, preventive action, and prosecution, but does not authorise a direct order of recovery against a public servant.

Relying on Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 3599 of 2020, 2022 (1) PLJR 267, and Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 18903 of 2021, MANU/BH/0399/2022, the Court held that the Lokayukta’s institution is intended to curb corruption, but its orders must remain within the statutory framework; a direct order affecting service rights or directing payment/recovery, without the prescribed investigation and recommendation process, is non-jurisdictional.

The Court found that the Lokayukta’s order dated 17 November 2020 was passed without the statutory foundation required by Sections 16, 28 and 28A.

The record, particularly the letter dated 17 November 2020, showed that the Lokayukta had not undertaken the requisite enquiry or investigation before holding the petitioner liable and directing recovery, departmental proceedings and prosecution.

Under Sections 28 and 28A, the Lokayukta could make findings and recommendations after investigation and require the competent authority to consider and report on the action taken; it could not itself impose a recovery liability directly upon the petitioner.

Applying the binding Division Bench decisions, the Court held that the Lokayukta’s order was beyond jurisdiction.

Since that order constituted the foundation for the subsequent recovery communications, those consequential orders also became unsustainable.

The Court further treated the petitioner’s deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 as having been made pursuant to the impugned recovery directions and therefore directed its refund.

The Lokayukta’s order dated 17 November 2020 in Complaint Case No. 1/Lok. (Health and Family Welfare) 02/2020 was set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 16, 28 and 28A of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011.

The consequential recovery orders and communications, including Memo Nos. 411 dated 23 December 2020, 52 dated 12 January 2021, 1316 dated 7 June 2021 and Letter No. 1357 directing recovery and payment of Rs. 4,00,000, were also quashed.

The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, was directed to refund Rs. 4,00,000 to the petitioner within three months from receipt or production of the judgment.