TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the post of Director General of Police in the Lok Ayukta, created by administrative order though not yet incorporated in the recruitment rules, was valid and whether the officer holding that post remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta; (ii) Whether the State Government could validly entrust investigation under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta; (iii) How section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 15 of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984 were to be harmonised, and whether further investigation in the pending cases could continue through such deputed officers.
Issue (i): Whether the post of Director General of Police in the Lok Ayukta, created by administrative order though not yet incorporated in the recruitment rules, was valid and whether the officer holding that post remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta.
Analysis: Creation of the post by administrative order was held permissible so long as it was not inconsistent with the governing statutory rules. The post was created in the office of the Lok Ayukta for the police wing and was intended to form part of the Lok Ayukta establishment. The mere fact that the recruitment rules were not immediately amended did not make the post external to the Lok Ayukta or place it beyond the Lok Ayukta's control. The arrangement did not show an intention to dilute the independence of the institution or to vest control exclusively in the Director General.
Conclusion: The creation of the post was valid, and the Director General and the police wing remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lok Ayukta.
Issue (ii): Whether the State Government could validly entrust investigation under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to police officers on deputation with the Lok Ayukta.
Analysis: The deputed police officers continued to be officers of the State Government and retained the requisite rank for investigation under section 17. The entrustment of investigation was supported by statutory power and, in the facts, had not been opposed by the Lok Ayukta at the stage of initial allocation. A deputation arrangement does not by itself destroy the State's power to assign duties under the anti-corruption statute where the borrowing authority has not objected and the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Conclusion: The entrustment of investigation to the deputed police officers was not without jurisdiction.
Issue (iii): How section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 15 of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984 were to be harmonised, and whether further investigation in the pending cases could continue through such deputed officers.
Analysis: The powers of the State Government and the Lok Ayukta were to be balanced by requiring consultation in practice and by preserving the Lok Ayukta's power to direct that deputed officers not undertake additional work where independence or effective functioning would be impaired. However, once no objection was raised at the threshold by the Lok Ayukta, the accused public servants could not insist on stopping the investigation midway. On the facts, the subsequent memorandum was treated as redundant and the pending investigation could not be interdicted at their instance.
Conclusion: The provisions were harmonised by preserving both statutory powers, and further investigation could continue through the deputed officers.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the investigation failed, the statutory arrangement was upheld, and the special leave petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Police officers on deputation to the Lok Ayukta do not cease to be State police officers for the purposes of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the State may validly entrust them with investigation where the Lok Ayukta does not object at the threshold, subject to the Lok Ayukta's power to protect its independent functioning under section 15 of the Karnataka State Lok Ayukta Act, 1984.
TaxTMI 
