(WPC No.3279/2020) CGHC010276902020 2026:CGHC:29365 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3279 of 2020 Order reserved on: 30/06/2026 Order delivered on: 13/07/2026 Order (Full) uploaded on: 13/07/2026 Dr. Shiv Shankar Agrawal, S/o Late B.L. Agrawal, Aged about 61 years, Presently working as Medical Officer in the Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Medi Health Hospital, Kukurbeda, Amanaka, Raipur, PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Through its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate through Video Conferencing assisted by Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate. Single Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal C.A.V. Order For the sake of exposition, this Order is divided in following parts:- S.No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Question Involved 2 2. Quintessential Facts 2 3. Return on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog 4 SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.07.13 14:49:01 +0530 (WPC No.3279/2020) 4. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 4 5. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 5 6. Relevant provisions relating to Misconduct 6 7. Discussion and Analysis 8 8. Conclusion 10 Question Involved 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog is justified in passing the impugned order dated 17/18-11-2020 (Annexure P-14) directing the petitioner to file his reply qua his misconduct for want of mandatory affidavit and requisite deposit as required under Section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act of 2002’)? Quintessential Facts 2. The petitioner herein was, at the relevant point of time, a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(i)(vii)(ff) of the Act of 2002. One Virendra Agrawal – complainant, filed a complaint (Annexure R-1) against the petitioner alleging misconduct as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002 holding that he is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and such pecuniary resources or property is held by him personally/by any member of his family or by any other person on his behalf, upon which the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog registered Case No.46/2017 and noticed the petitioner vide Annexure P-7 seeking certain comments on point Nos.1 to 8. Immediately after receiving notice, the petitioner sought some documents in (WPC No.3279/2020) accordance with the Act of 2002 read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog (Investigation) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2002’) so that necessary compliance can be made, which were not supplied to him and in addition to that, vide Annexure P-3, certain annexures (forms) were supplied to him to furnish information which he replied competently and thereafter, he made an application to the Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Raipur for supplying information as to whether in the prescribed format, complaint and affidavit has not been submitted and on the complaint, any action has been taken. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog vide Annexure P-6 has changed its stand stating that action has not been taken on the complaint, but has been taken on the specific information under Section 6 of the Act of 2002, but not under any complaint. Thereafter, proceeded further leading to passing of the impugned order by the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog on 17/18-11-2020 stating that action has been taken on the basis of specific information under Section 6 of the Act of 2002 and no complaint has been made under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 and accordingly, directed that required information should not be given as it is a case of specific information with regard to disproportionate property and therefore inquiry is required to be made under Section 13(5)(a) & (b) of the Act of 2002 and further directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner failing which he would be proceeded under Section 13(5)(b) of the Act of 2002. The petitioner preferred writ petition stating inter alia that on the basis of specific complaint, (WPC No.3279/2020) complaint has been registered as Case No.46/2017 and therefore affidavit and mandatory deposit are necessary and the entire process is unsustainable and bad in law and as such, it is liable to be set aside. Return on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent and it has been stated that on receiving specific information of misconduct under Section 6 of the Act of 2002, inquiry has been initiated and therefore the petitioner’s stand is unsustainable and the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It has further been stated that since the petitioner is avoiding the proceeding and also not cooperating even in the routine queries being made, the respondent Aayog was absolutely justified in taking aid to the provisions contained in Section 13(5) of the Act of 2002. It is also stated that despite all non-cooperation and unbecoming allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent Aayog, the respondent Aayog has been giving the petitioner more than ample opportunities to reply as well as personal hearing in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Act of 2002 read with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2002. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 4. Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the respondent Aayog cannot be (WPC No.3279/2020) allowed to convert a complaint into a specific information under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. He would further submit that the respondent Aayog itself has filed copy of the complaint as Annexure R-1 before this Court and since it is a complaint which was also registered as Case No.46/2017, it ought to have been supported by affidavit and shall be accompanied by a mandatory deposit of two hundred and fifty rupees as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He would also submit that conversion of complaint into a specific information is not permissible and the authority like the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog cannot be allowed to conduct any proceeding in an arbitrary fashion and Rule 17 of the Rules of 2002 is mandatory in nature. He would further contend that such an act of the Lok Aayog is violative of the petitioner’s right under Section 10(6) of the Act of 2002. As such, the complaint and the entire proceeding deserve to be quashed and consequently, the order impugned dated 17/18-11-2020 deserves to be quashed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 5. Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, would submit that ample opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner, copy of information as received by the Lok Aayog has been forwarded to the petitioner, no provision of the Act of 2002 or the Rules of 2002 has been violated, and to conduct inquiry and investigation on receiving (WPC No.3279/2020) information of misconduct is the duty of the Lok Aayog and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. Relevant provisions relating to Misconduct 7. ‘Misconduct’ has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2002 and ‘public servant’ has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 2002 under which the petitioner herein falls i.e. under clause (vii) (ff). Section 6 of the Act of 2002 provides that upon receiving specific information of misconduct or a complaint against any public servant, the Lok Aayog may proceed to inquire into the matter contained therein. Thus, under Section 6, cognizance can be taken on the specific information of misconduct or a complaint made against the public servant. Inquiry can be made by the Lok Aayog either on receiving the information of misconduct or on the complaint made against the public servant under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, which provides as under: - “8. Provisions relating to complaints- (1) Every complaint involving a misconduct shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a deposit of two hundred and fifty rupees, and the complainant shall swear in affidavit in such form as may be prescribed before a member or any officer authorized by the Lok Aayog in this behalf.” 8. Every complaint, under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, involving a misconduct shall be accompanied by a deposit of ₹ 250/- and the (WPC No.3279/2020) complainant shall swear in affidavit in such form as may be prescribed before a member or any officer authorized by the Lok Aayog in this behalf. As such, the provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, is mandatory and every complaint involving a misconduct shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a mandatory deposit of ₹ 250/-, and the complaint shall also be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the complainant in such form as may be prescribed before a member or any officer authorized by the Lok Aayog in this behalf. Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 is mandatory and complaint must be supported by affidavit and must be accompanied with by a deposit of ₹ 250/-. Non-compliance of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 shall entail the dismissal of complaint since Section 8(1) is mandatory as held herein-above. Section 10(6) of the Act of 2002 provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), no person shall be compelled for the purpose of inquiry under the Adhiniyam (the Act of 2002) to give any evidence or produce any document, which he could not be compelled to give or produce in proceedings before a Court. 9. In exercise of power under Section 17(1) of the Act of 2002, rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Adhiniyam (the Act of 2002) have been framed known as the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog (Investigation) Rules, 2002 (the Rules of 2002). Rule 6 the the Rules of 2002 provides that every complaint to the Aayog under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 shall be in writing and in Form I, duly signed and verified by the complainant and shall be supported by an (WPC No.3279/2020) affidavit in Form II. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2002 provides that the deposit of ₹ 250/- under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 shall be in the form of Court fee stamps, which shall be affixed on the complaint. Rule 8 provides that affidavit in Form II may be sworn before the Secretary or before any other Gazetted Officer of the Aayog empowered by the Pramukh Lokayukt by a special or general order to administer oath to the complainant. Rule 8 further provides that it may also be sworn before a Magistrate or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths, but it must be in Form II. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2002 provides that when the Aayog decides to conduct an investigation against a public servant, such public servant shall be served with a copy of the complaint or a statement of imputations against him and shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard personally or through his authorised representative. Discussion and Analysis 10. In the instant case, according to the own version of the respondent Lok Aayog, specific complaint was made in writing vide Annexure R- 1 to the Lokayukt which was registered as Case No.46/2017 and as such, it would fall under second part of Section 6 of the Act of 2002. It is a complaint against the public servant and once it is complaint against public servant, provisions relating to complaints as required under Section 8 of the Act of 2002 would stand attracted and every complaint involving a misconduct shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a deposit of ₹ 250/- and (WPC No.3279/2020) the complainant shall swear in affidavit in such form as may be prescribed before a member or any officer authorized by the Lok Aayog in this behalf. It has been clarified in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002 that every complaint to the Aayog under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 shall be in writing and in Form I, duly signed and verified by the complainant and shall be supported by an affidavit in Form II. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2002 prescribes that the deposit of ₹ 250/- under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 shall be in the form of Court fee stamps, which shall be affixed on the complaint and affidavit in Form II may be sworn as prescribed in Rule 8. The provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act of 2002 read with Rules 6(i), 7 and 8 of the Rules of 2002 are mandatory in nature. 11. In the instant case, it is apparent from the stand taken by the Lok Aayog that complaint was made by complainant Virendra Agrawal copy of which has been filed by the respondent Lok Aayog vide Annexure R-1 and neither any affidavit in prescribed form as required by Section 8 of the Act of 2002 and the rules made thereunder was filed nor any deposit of ₹ 250/- was accompanied which was mandatory and which the petitioner has also demanded vide Annexure P-2. The said information was supplied to the petitioner by the Lok Aayog under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide Annexure P-6 dated 28-2-2020 stating that no affidavit was filed along with the complaint. Page 10 of 11 (WPC No.3279/2020) 12. The complaint has been filed and it has duly been registered as Case No.46/2017. The Lok Aayog has changed its stand and came up with a changed version that it is the specific information, whereas it is not the specific information and it is a complaint. Change of stand which is reflected in Annexure P-7 dated 5-2-2020 cannot be approved by this Court, as cognizance has been said to be taken on the written complaint filed by the complainant under Section 6 of the Act of 2002, but the stand has been changed by the Lok Aayog that is on the basis of specific information received on the complaint filed by the complainant, which is not correct and is contrary to the record. Once the complainant has made specific complaint in writing against misconduct in shape of Annexure R-1, Section 8 of the Act of 2002 is attracted along with the rules, and filing of affidavit and deposit becomes absolutely mandatory and in absence of affidavit and mandatory deposit, the matter could not have been proceeded further and thus, the order dated 17/18-11-2020 (Annexure P-14) is totally unwarranted, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Once the manner has been prescribed of doing certain acts by the statute, it has to be followed and done in letter and spirit, which has not been done. Consequently, the entire proceeding and the order dated 17/18-11-2020 deserves to be quashed. Conclusion 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17/18-11-2020 (Annexure P-14) is hereby quashed and the complaint so filed as Annexure R-1 is dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is (WPC No.3279/2020) allowed to the extent indicated herein-above with no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma