Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7536 (JHR)

LIYAKAT ALI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS.

WPC/6882/2013 · 2026-04-22

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:11793 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6882 of 2013 Liyakat Ali, son of late Ali Mohammad, presently posted as the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hussainabad, Palamau and Residing at Hussainabad, P.O. and P.S. Hussainabad, District-Palamau ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, State-Jharkhand 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and District-Ranchi, State- Jharkhand ...... … Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II 09/ 22.04.2026: Heard Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble Lokayukta directing to institution of First Information Report and for initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms at Hussainabad in the district of Palamau and he was posted as a Block Development Officer, Chanho Block for the period 18.08.2005 till 04.12.2007 and at the relevant time, a scheme known as total Sanitation Campaign under Central Rural Sanitation Programme for providing individual health and hygiene was going on and the main objective of the same was to bring about an improvement in the general quality of life in rural areas accelerate sanitation ( 2026:JHHC:11793 ) 2 coverage in access to toilets to all by 2017; motivate communities and Panchayati Raj Institutions promoting the sanitation facilities through awareness creation and health cover education; in rural areas, cover schools and Anganwadis by March, 2012 with sanitation facilities and promote hygiene education and sanitary habits among the students; encourage cost effective and appropriate technologies for ecologically safe and the sanitation; and develop community managed environmental sanitation systems focusing on solid and liquid waste management. He next submits that the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Chanho Block, with effect from 18.08.2005 to 3.12.2007 and during his tenure, the estimated cost was allocated for the purposes of installation of toilets. Initially it was Rs.1200/- plus Rs.300/- by way of contribution by the beneficiaries. He further submits that during the tenure of the petitioner on the basis of the requisition made by the local people, altogether 419 toilets were constructed in different villages of Chanho Block and the constructed toilets were used to be inspected by the Jan-Sewak and thereafter, the same was being cross-verified by the Opposite Party and the concerned Supervisor and after completion of the work in question, the beneficiaries have accepted the same and started using it. However, the petitioner was surprised to receive notice from the Lokayukta, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the basis of a complaint dated 23.12.2011 filed by one Akhtar Hussain Khan, Advocate Ranchi stating therein that irregularities have been committed in the matter of construction of toilets under the said scheme. He next submits that after receiving notice the petitioner enquired and came to know that Akhtar Hussain Khan, Advocate, Ranchi had previously filed a writ petition -Public Interest Litigation before the Hon’ble High Court being W.P.(PIL) No. 6621 of 2012 for issuance of direction upon the respondent-authority to conduct an enquiry in implementation of the said work. However, subsequently, the said Public Interest Litigation has been withdrawn. He further submits that ( 2026:JHHC:11793 ) 3 the learned Lokayukta based on the said complaint has been pleased to make direction to register First Information Report and initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner which is not within the authority of the Lokayukta. He next submits that Lokayukta cannot issue such direction in the light of section 12(3) of Lokayukta Act, 2001. He submits that even if such order is there the authority to whom such recommendation has been made are required to act strictly pursuance to the provision of section 12 of the Act, 2001. On these ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that it is merely a recommendation and not a direction and in view of that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Lokayukta. 5. It transpires from perusal of impugned order that order has been passed making recommendation to the competent authority to register the F.I.R and initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In the said order further direction is there to communicate the action taken pursuant to the said recommendation to the office of Lokayukta within three months. 6. In view of above, it is crystal clear that initially the order passed for recommendation then it would have been said to be in consonance with the provision of Section 12(3) and 12(5) (k) under which the power has been conferred by the Lokayukta to take decision by making recommendation before the competent authority, so that the recommendation, if required be acted upon. 7. However, further direction is there that action taken report be also furnished within the period of three months, that is changing the nature of recommendation making it as a direction. 8. This matter has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 263 ( 2026:JHHC:11793 ) 4 of 2019 which reads as under:- “19. As has been referred hereinabove by referring to the impugned order, wherein, the recommendation has been made to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau to institute an FIR and submit action 18 taken report and when the recommendation is with the action to be taken it cannot be said to be recommendation in the eye of law and keeping the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2001 wherein only recommendation is to be made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta leaving it open to the competent authority to take action and to submit action taken report and in case of dissatisfaction the Hon'ble Lokayukta will prepare special report with the finding and again submit it before the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned and as per the provision made under Section 5A whether in a report forwarded by the Hon'ble Lokayukta any recommendation imposing the penalty of removal from the office of the public servant had been made, it shall be lawful for the Governor without any further enquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such public servont from his office and for making his oneligible for beting elected to any office, meaning thereby a recommendation imposing the penalty of removal is to be made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta only after exhausting the provision as contained in subsection 3, 4 and 5 of Section 12 but that stage has not yet reached as becouse at the stage of Section 12(3) the recommendation along with the proposal to institute an FIR has been made which is not to be done in viete of the provision of Subsection 3 of Section 12 whereby and twhereunder he shall by a report in writing communicate his finding and recommendatious along with the relevant documents/materials and other evidence to the competent authority, that provision does not reflect that the recommendation by giving a proposal to institute an FIR or to take any penalty is to be made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta before coming to the stage of subsection 4 of Section 12. In view of the entirety of the fact and circumstances, the recommendation having been made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta cannot be said to be in consonance with the statutory provision as contained in Act, 2001 and for that the matter could have been remitted before the Hon'ble Lokayukta but considering the nature of allegation if it will be remitted it will time consuming and therefore, this Court being given power conferred under Article 226 deem it fit and proper instead of removing the matter to pass a fresh order to modify the order impugned in term as indicated hereinbelow the direction part twherey and whereunder the recommendation to institute an FIR has been made the same is held to be not in consonance with subsection 3 of Section 12 of the Act, 2001 and therefore the said part of the order is quashed and the impugned order is modified to the extent to treat the order impugned as recommendation of the Hon'ble Lokayukta in terms of the provision as contained in Section 12(3) of the Act 2001. Although this Court is interfering with the direction part of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, keeping the provision of latw into consideration, as discussed above, that does not be construed to be an interference with the findings of recommendation, as has been recommended/recorded by the Hon'ble Lokayukta for the reason that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot exercise the power of appeal, sitting over upon the findings given by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, based upon various evidence came before it by virtue of the ( 2026:JHHC:11793 ) 5 enquiry reports. Therefore, the authority before whom, the finding along with the recommendation has been sent, is directed to act strictly in pursuance to the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2001, so that the purpose for which, the Lokayukta Act, 2001 as has been enacted, be achieved, keeping this into consideration the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to ensure compliance of this order. Further, it is directed that the authority will not be prejudiced in any way while acting as per the recommendation and will take a decision without being prejudiced by this order. Needless to say that the authority will follow the time schedule, as stipulated in the provision of law. The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations and direction aforesaid." 9. In the light of above according to considered view of the report that the provision under section 12(3) does not confer the power to the Lokayukta to pass such direction commanding upon the disciplinary authority to take action against whom irregularities have been found. 10. In view of above judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 263 of 2019, the impugned order is required to be modified to the extent that the said order will be treated for recommendation only. 11. Therefore, the authority before whom, the finding along with the recommendation has been sent, is directed to act strictly in pursuance to the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2001, so that the purpose for which, the Lokayukta Act, 2001 as has been enacted, be achieved, keeping this into consideration the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to ensure compliance of this order. 12. It is further clarified that the authority will not be prejudiced in any way while acting as per the recommendation and will take a decision without being prejudiced by this order. 13. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Dt.22.04.2026 Satyarthi/A.F.R ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)