S.17 Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta And Up-Lokayuktas Act Not A Bar On High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the bar created in Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 on review of its decision by any court, does not apply to High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While dealing with suspension order based on the recommendations of the Lokayuta, Justice J.J. Munir held,

“This Court must remark that the Lokayukta functions under the Act of 1975. The reference in Section 17(2) excluding the jurisdiction of the Court to review or quash the order of Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, except on ground of jurisdiction, cannot be pleaded as a bar to this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reference to 'Court' or bar to the Court's jurisdiction under Section 17(2) of the Act would apply to Courts of ordinary jurisdiction; not the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Petitioner's services were terminated on allegations that he manipulated his date of birth in the service record. The termination order was set aside by the writ Court on grounds that he had already crossed the age of superannuation, which, in turn, was based on a case that he manipulated his date of birth in the service record. However, in fresh inquiry, petitioner was placed under suspension.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that termination of petitioner had already been set aside by the High Court without granting any liberty to the Nagar Palika Parishad to proceed afresh in the matter. Accordingly, respondents had no jurisdiction suspend the petitioner and proceed against him on the same charge of manipulating his date of birth in the service book.

However, rejecting the above argument, the Court observed that the earlier order of the writ Court only recorded that the Nagar Palika Parishad ought have conducted a separate inquiry and not relied solely on the communication by the Additional District Magistrate. A disciplinary inquiry should to have been conducted by the Nagar Palika Parishad as the allegation was to the effect that the petitioner had manipulated his date of birth in the service records.

“The manipulation could be done by the petitioner by 'scoring off' or 'overwriting' or in some other manner, particularly, as he had charge of all the service records, including his own. Therefore, to infer from the remarks of this Court in the judgment that the factum of there being no 'cutting' or 'overwriting' in the extract of a copy of the service book gives a quietus to the issue, would be flawed reasoning.” Accordingly, the Court held that the earlier order cannot be said to exclude the jurisdiction of the Nagar Palika Parishad from conducting fresh inquiry.

The Court relied on Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the Supreme Court observed that “'an adjudication on merits by a quasi-judicial body' may or may not debar commencement of another inquiry in respect of the same subject matter.”

The Court held that manipulation is not limited to 'overwriting' or 'cutting', it can be done in other ways also. Thus, merely there being no 'overwriting' or 'cutting' does not mean the records had not been manipulated. The Court held that recording of this fact in the order does not bar Nagar Palika Parishad from conducting fresh inquiry.

An objection was raised by the Counsel for Lokayukt that based on Section 17(2) of the Act, no interference could be made by the High Court in the suspension order which was based on the recommendations of the Loyakut.

Section 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 reads as

“17(2) No proceedings of the Lokayukta or the Up- Lokayukta shall be held bad for want of form and except on the ground of jurisdiction, no proceedings or decision of the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed or quashed or called in question in any Court.”

The Court observed that Section 17(2) only bars the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts and cannot said to be a bar on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the inquiry officer to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months.

Case Title: Masood Ahmad Khan vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421

Appearances: Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monika Arya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent and Mr. Manas Bhargava, Counsel representing the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order