Enquiry By Lokayukta Into Corruption Not Prejudicial Even Where One Facing Criminal Charges: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court last week ruled that where for the selfsame cause of action, a government contractor has been blacklisted (which order has been challenged before the Court) and is also facing criminal charges by lodging of an FIR, the causing of an enquiry by the Lokayukta cannot be said to be prejudicial to his interest.The bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice B. R....
The Orissa High Court last week ruled that where for the selfsame cause of action, a government contractor has been blacklisted (which order has been challenged before the Court) and is also facing criminal charges by lodging of an FIR, the causing of an enquiry by the Lokayukta cannot be said to be prejudicial to his interest.
The bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice B. R. Sarangi refused to interfere in the Lokayukta's order for a probe by state vigilance into the collapse of a bridge over the Suktel river in April, which resulted in the death of two labourers. A portion of the bridge in Balangir district, constructed under the Biju Setu Yojana, had collapsed within five years of its being built. The contractor firm was blacklisted and a criminal case lodged against it. The Lokayukta had issued the probe order on August 12 after suo motu registering a complaint case on the basis of newspaper reports. The contractor firm had filed a petition in the high court, seeking quashing of the Lokayukta's probe order. On September 9, another division bench had stayed the probe in the interim.
Having heard the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Parija and the Advocate General for the State, the CJ-led bench found that admittedly due to lapses committed by the contractor the bridge collapsed resulting in the death of two workers. "Even though the order blacklisting the contractor has been challenged before this Court and the matter is pending adjudication, and the contractor himself is facing criminal case lodged against it for such negligence in the work, but that ipso facto cannot disentitle the Lokayukta to cause an enquiry under the provisions of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 for alleged corruption in the matter of execution of the work itself", said the division bench.
The bench noted that as such, the Lokayukta had issued notice to the petitioner directing the Managing Director to appear and in response to the same, it was stated that the Managing Director expired on 03.08.2020 and subsequently the present petitioner, being the Managing Director, instructed the lawyer, who also appeared before the Lokayukta on 12.08.2020. "Since Lokayukta wanted to have an enquiry about the construction of the bridge and reasons for construction of substandard work and crack created within a period of five years of construction resulting in its collapse and ultimately causing death of two labourers and, therefore, the Lokayukta came to a prima facie view that loss of two lives and huge public money could have been averted, had the public servants in charge of the construction of the bridge discharged their duties honestly and diligently. Then, taking cognizance of such fact the Lokayukta issued direction to the Director, Vigilance, Odisha to carry out the investigation and submit status report within a period of three months", recorded the bench.
Therefore, it was of the view that if the direction has been given to find out the lapses caused on the part of the government servant and such direction has been issued under Section 20(6) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, there is no illegality or irregularity in issuing such direction by the Lokayukta. "More particularly, in the event the interim order dated 09.09.2020 passed by this Court is allowed to continue, it will obstruct the investigation itself. If the investigation is in embryonic stage and, as such, the authorities are now proceeding with the investigation, at this stage, this writ petition should not have been entertained and interim protection should not have been granted", said the bench.
Incidentally, on the same day, another Single Judge of the same High Court held that "where a complaint is pending before the Lokayukta and in the event the Lokayukta is taking up the selfsame issue, institution of F.I.R. on the selfsame issue against the petitioner will definitely create double-jeopardy"
[Read Order]