Prior hearing not required before forming prima facie opinion for issuance of notice under Lokpal Act.

Following Complaint No. 243/2025, the Lokpal directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (“the Act”)

Upon perusing the CBI report dated 27.01.2026, the Lokpal passed an order on 25.02.2026 finding allegations 1 and 3 prima facie substantiated against the petitioner

Subsequently, on 27.02.2026, the Lokpal issued a show cause notice under Section 20(3) of the Act

The petitioner challenged both the order and the notice, contending that the Lokpal failed to grant him a hearing before forming a prima facie opinion and had already "made up its mind," thus vitiating the proceedings

The petitioner appeared before the Lokpal on 18.03.2026 but filed the present writ petition instead of submitting a reply

The court primarily applied the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, specifically Section 20(1), which governs the initiation of preliminary inquiries, and Section 20(3), which mandates an opportunity of hearing for the public servant before final action is taken

The court distinguished the precedent Shri Shashi Shekhar Prasad v. Lokpal of India and Ors., 2026:DHC:2853-DB, noting it applied to challenges after final orders were passed, not at the show-cause stage

It further applied the principle of administrative law that a prima facie opinion formed for the purpose of issuing a notice does not constitute a final adjudication or a pre-judgment of the merits

The court reasoned that the Lokpal must necessarily apply its mind to the CBI's preliminary inquiry report to determine whether to drop the proceedings or proceed with a notice; failure to do so would result in the non-application of mind

It held that Section 20(3) of the Act contemplates an opportunity of hearing before a final decision is reached, and the legislature did not intend for a hearing to be granted prior to the mere issuance of a show cause notice

The court observed that the order dated 25.02.2026 was solely a prima facie view and that the petitioner’s apprehension of prejudice was misplaced, as the final decision would only be taken after considering his reply

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner sought to delay proceedings by filing the writ instead of participating in the Lokpal's inquiry

The court directed the petitioner to raise all grievances before the Lokpal and explicitly ordered the Lokpal to take a final decision based on the petitioner's reply without being prejudiced by the observations made in the prima facie order of 25.02.2026

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly